Baseball Hall of Fame Ballot

[JimH5]

Jeter wasn't a bystander on those teams. He was in the center of them, and near the top of their lineups. And postseason opponents aren't league average opponents, they're the best teams, often with excellent pitchers.

 

To waive off his accomplishments in the biggest games, against the best opponents seems a little dismissive.

[adambr2]

Jeter is really overrated. He's a HOFer and deservedly so, but the way he's talked about you'd think he is on a top 10 list of the greatest ever and he's clearly not. You cannot convince me that he doesn't earn bonus reputation points for being a Yankee, spending his entire career there, and having a reputation as an ambassador for the game which really has nothing to do with his playing career.

[stalton]

I agree with most posters here. I think Jeter is a HOFer for sure. I think the intangibles (ambassador/same team/etc) is the reason why he was almost unanimous. For all the issues of the HoF, it's well known that it's all not stat based. That being said, other than some talking heads, I dont think anybody 20 years from now will care that much how many votes Jeter got.

[clancyphile]

Jeter is really overrated. He's a HOFer and deservedly so, but the way he's talked about you'd think he is on a top 10 list of the greatest ever and he's clearly not. You cannot convince me that he doesn't earn bonus reputation points for being a Yankee, spending his entire career there, and having a reputation as an ambassador for the game which really has nothing to do with his playing career.

 

Well, when you look at the fact that the HOF does state that character, sportsmanship, etc. should be considerations on the ballot, I see no problem with that, or with Jeter coming within one vote of a unanimous election.

[3and2Fastball]

Jeter is really overrated. He's a HOFer and deservedly so, but the way he's talked about you'd think he is on a top 10 list of the greatest ever and he's clearly not. You cannot convince me that he doesn't earn bonus reputation points for being a Yankee, spending his entire career there, and having a reputation as an ambassador for the game which really has nothing to do with his playing career.

 

He’s not close to Top 10 All Time overall players, but he’s clearly one of the Top 5 Shortstops of All Time and has the World Series rings and iconic status and performance in the clutch that makes him a slam dunk unanimous Hall of Famer.

[adambr2]

Sure, that's true. And I would have had no problem with him being unanimous. I just don't see any reason for outcry on him not being unanimous.

 

I think the silly historical practice of some writers not voting guys in on their first try has kind of ruined it for me because in the back of my mind I'm always comparing the guys of today to some of them. The fact that 23 writers felt compelled to not vote Willie Mays in on his first try and 9 chose not to vote in Hank Aaron just seems ridiculous by today's standards. These guys were true all-time greats.

 

With that said, I'm glad that practice has been largely abandoned, it just seems like a disservice now to some of the best ever.

[JimH5]

The HOF makes no distinction if someone entered from the writers' ballot or the veterans committees. Mariano Rivera is no more of a hall of famer than Harold Baines or Rick Ferrell. The obsession that we have over who didn't vote for who seems unnecessary. BBWAA members have earned the right to vote however they want, and to keep it private from others.

 

Vote totals and percentages make for fun sportstalk fodder, but that's it.

[wntrtxn21]

The HOF makes no distinction if someone entered from the writers' ballot or the veterans committees. Mariano Rivera is no more of a hall of famer than Harold Baines or Rick Ferrell. The obsession that we have over who didn't vote for who seems unnecessary. BBWAA members have earned the right to vote however they want, and to keep it private from others.

 

Vote totals and percentages make for fun sportstalk fodder, but that's it.

 

You're right! What's the big deal about Jeter? Better players than Jeter weren't elected with 100% of the vote. Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, Mantle, Mays, Gehrig, Ryan, etc...

[DHonks]

Ortiz failed the mass test they did that was supposed to be anonymous but got leaked. Don't think it's a coincidence he got with known juicer Manny and then got good.

 

Pudge was in the middle of the TX Rangers stuff with all those guys. Named in Canseco's book. Lost like 20 lbs once testing went in

 

I really don't care about it, I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy and two sidedness of it all. Let in the best of that era and move on.

 

According to reports, the steroid found on the mass test was a cataboic steroid, not an anabolic. Ortiz was prescribed the steroids for muscle inflamation in his back. From that time on he was tested hundreds of times and never missed a test or failed a test.

 

Don't forget the time an entire team (I think the ChiSox) tested positive. It was before the league was actually testing for enforcement, but they were doing random tests to determine if testing was needed. An entire team voted to pass on the tests because they wanted a strong testing policy. But by passing on the tests, they were seen as positive.

[DHonks]

Ortiz failed the mass test they did that was supposed to be anonymous but got leaked. Don't think it's a coincidence he got with known juicer Manny and then got good.

 

Pudge was in the middle of the TX Rangers stuff with all those guys. Named in Canseco's book. Lost like 20 lbs once testing went in

 

I really don't care about it, I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy and two sidedness of it all. Let in the best of that era and move on.

 

According to reports, the steroid found on the mass test was a cataboic steroid, not an anabolic. Ortiz was prescribed the steroids for muscle inflamation in his back. From that time on he was tested hundreds of times and never missed a test or failed a test.

 

Combine that with not being all that good, then all of a sudden being a superstar once he partners up with Manny and the storyline and circumstantial looks bad too.

 

Umm, I think we know where you stand. I hope you're never on my jury when I'm wrongfully accused of something. You're a 100% guilty, conspiracy theorist kind of guy. Ortiz was a solid player with the Twins in his young years. You make it seem like he was trash. Remember, many Latin players take a little longer to refine and turn their talent into results. Edwin Encarnacion was brutal. Jose Bautista was brutal. Jose Guillen was brutal. Carlos Gomez was brutal. Ortiz was pretty solid in his early years, unlike those guys.

[DHonks]

The unanimous thing is downright comical. There are so many guys in past (probably dozens) that were no brainers why being unanimous would be anything meaningful is just strange. It isn’t and should not be relevant, they have screwed it up for years to the point it shouldn’t even be a topic. First ballot is what matters. It shows there is little to no doubt you were a HOFer.

 

The real crime is Larry Walker making it. He started at 10%, was at 55% last year, and then jumped to 75%+ this year? Sorry, it doesn’t make a ton of sense. It is voting someone in to vote someone in last second. If he was actually deemed worthy it would have been reflected sooner. Maybe you think he is, maybe not. Regardless, that is the strange voting decision that should be talked about.

 

I'd vote him in without thinking twice. Walker was one of the most dominant hitters for a period of over half a decade.

[adambr2]

The unanimous thing is downright comical. There are so many guys in past (probably dozens) that were no brainers why being unanimous would be anything meaningful is just strange. It isn’t and should not be relevant, they have screwed it up for years to the point it shouldn’t even be a topic. First ballot is what matters. It shows there is little to no doubt you were a HOFer.

 

The real crime is Larry Walker making it. He started at 10%, was at 55% last year, and then jumped to 75%+ this year? Sorry, it doesn’t make a ton of sense. It is voting someone in to vote someone in last second. If he was actually deemed worthy it would have been reflected sooner. Maybe you think he is, maybe not. Regardless, that is the strange voting decision that should be talked about.

 

You basically said that past percentages aren't relevant in the first paragraph which is a really good point and then seemed to contradict it in the last. Larry Walker has a very strong HOF case. Credentials should be all that matter. I don't know why he only got 10% on his first ballot, but he shouldn't be penalized for that in the future. His resume still is what it is.

[MrTPlush]

The unanimous thing is downright comical. There are so many guys in past (probably dozens) that were no brainers why being unanimous would be anything meaningful is just strange. It isn’t and should not be relevant, they have screwed it up for years to the point it shouldn’t even be a topic. First ballot is what matters. It shows there is little to no doubt you were a HOFer.

 

The real crime is Larry Walker making it. He started at 10%, was at 55% last year, and then jumped to 75%+ this year? Sorry, it doesn’t make a ton of sense. It is voting someone in to vote someone in last second. If he was actually deemed worthy it would have been reflected sooner. Maybe you think he is, maybe not. Regardless, that is the strange voting decision that should be talked about.

 

You basically said that past percentages aren't relevant in the first paragraph which is a really good point and then seemed to contradict it in the last. Larry Walker has a very strong HOF case. Credentials should be all that matter. I don't know why he only got 10% on his first ballot, but he shouldn't be penalized for that in the future. His resume still is what it is.

 

Getting 75% or 100% doesn’t matter. Well 99% or 100% doesn’t...it is silly it gets beat to death every time.

 

It is the fact Walker went from no one thinking he was a HOFer to squeezing in after a 20% jump the last year. You could make an argument over time “things changed” a little bit, but not that much coincidently when it was his last year eligible. Things certainly weren’t any different last year when he wasn’t even close still. It is one thing to vote him into the HOF, but what exactly where they doing with there votes all these years prior? It is just another example of what the voters do with there votes is confusing at best.

 

Of course I bet all the people suddenly voting for Walker are anonymous voters so their strange logic will remain a mystery.

[adambr2]

But he also played for 17 seasons, was one of the best bats of his era, averaged[ a 141 OPS+ and .965 OPS in those 17 seasons, won 7 gold gloves, won an MVP, and was worth 73 WAR in his career. Those are clearly HOF credentials compared to many others before him. Why should anything else matter?

 

You can't induct Harold Baines and then tell me that Larry Walker is not a HOFer.

[jerichoholicninja]

Not sure how much of a difference it made but there were lots of writers (not sure if they were HOF voters or not) making a case for Walker the last year or so.

[Outlander]

You can't induct Harold Baines and then tell me that Larry Walker is not a HOFer.

The writers didn't vote Baines in so they don't have to lower the bar to that level. They can't control what special committees do.

[MrTPlush]

Again, I’m not really arguing that he is not a HOFer. It’s the fact he went from 20% to 75% in two years. It doesn’t really make sense. That’s going from not even a consideration to in the hall. Did everyone finally wake up from a long nap? Are the voters so technical with what year you get in a border HOF guy has to wait till the last year or two?

[adambr2]

I don't know. Makes no sense to me why Walker's voting percentage was ever that low. I don't know what their reasoning was.

[Oxy]

Again, I’m not really arguing that he is not a HOFer. It’s the fact he went from 20% to 75% in two years. It doesn’t really make sense. That’s going from not even a consideration to in the hall. Did everyone finally wake up from a long nap? Are the voters so technical with what year you get in a border HOF guy has to wait till the last year or two?

 

I think it makes perfect sense for borderline guys to wait 10 years or 3 years or whatever. Voters can only vote for 10 guys so maybe they filled filled up their ballots in previous years with guys who were getting close to being dropped off the ballot. By the time Walker (from Canada AND played in Canada and in flyover country AND an expansion franchise with no historical fanbase) was getting a few years from being dropped off the ballot, people actually started to look at what he accomplished in his career. For the first 5 years people just read the "name" Larry Walker...which isn't a name the media ever hyped...ever. It doesn't sound like "Derek Jeter" or even like he would have played for a team that Derek Jeter played for. He sounds like an accountant or perhaps an apprentice to a Texas Ranger, who he didn't even play for.

 

Once people actually looked at his case for the HOF they realized they had to vote for him before he was dropped off the ballot. Simple as that.

[JimH5]

In Walker's first year on the ballot, he was crowded out by others who eventually were elected.

 

Bert Blyleven

Roberto Alomar

Barry Larkin

Jack Morris

Lee Smith

Jeff Bagwell

Tim Raines

Edgar Martinez

Alan Trammell

 

Later, he was joined by Craig Biggio, Mike Piazza, Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Frank Thomas, Mike Mussina, Randy Johnson, John Smoltz, Pedro Martinez, Ken Griffey, Trevor Hoffman, Ivan Rodriguez, Vlad Guerrero, Chipper Jones, Jim Thome, Mariano Rivera and Roy Halladay. PLUS, the controversial guys (Bonds, Clemens, Schilling, Sosa, Sheffield, McGwire, Manny, etc.).

 

He was in the mix with a ton of guys who took ballots away as writers were directing them to others who were running out of time.

 

The BBWAA has done a good job of clearing the backlog of deserving players. Walker just needed to wait until his case became urgent.