What does the Hall-of-Fame Tracker Indicate?
 

https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?...K9u16pmWGGlQsI

For those of us who just can't wait any longer to find out:

Bad News for a lot of us.



.

The only poll that counts is the final tally and the published results.

Vizquel lol.

Ortiz might get in, but no one else will this year.

??


One of the best defensive shortstops ever...IMO

- not Ozzie or Belanger, but next tier at least. again IMO.



.

Sure, but some of us like to watch races while they are happening.


.

I think Peter may be commenting about Vizquel in light of the recent sexual abuse allegations that had come out about him.

Someone recently said, "it's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Saints."

If Ortiz gets elected to the Hall of Fame in his first year, it will be a shame.

More like a travesty than a shame.

The the good part was when he joined the Sox his body size quickly caught up to his giant head.

This. The numbers always go down when the final results, including those who didn't share their ballots, are tallied. I can't say I'm surprised by this. Ortiz is beloved by many (even though I'm not a big fan), while A Rod is not. A Rod, though, was clearly the better player. So, given that they're both known to have done PEDs, why is Big Papa getting a pass and A Rod not? The voters need to make up their damn minds on how they view PED use. It should definitely not come down to arbitrary decisions.

His vote total is next to nothing, after he had been moving up each year.

ARod admitted it, right? Ortiz is still in that fuzzy land of sort of denying it. As for their relative abilities, based on stats anyhow, ARod you could argue is a top 10 all time player. Ortiz off the top of my head is probably 75-100.

I know, wasn't commenting about Vizquel, merely about Peter's comment.

And before that it was his wife accusing him of abuse, right? Anyhow seems Omar's chances are nil at this point.

Understand. No negative intent directed any you or anyone. I'm not a tit-for-tat guy, nor do I attack anyone for their comments, opinions, or beliefs. So if someone gets offended or takes what I say personally, even though it wasn't my intent, then I have no problem apologizing. Thanks!

Absolutely crazy, he is like the last person in the world you would ever expect to hear about doing any of the things he's been accused off. His chances of ever getting in now are toast. I'm wondering if he'll even get a single actual vote this year. It's one thing to be called out as maybe the voter or two to hold out and keep someone great from being unanimously elected to the HOF. But it is a whole other thing to chance being the only voter or two to vote for someone with such accusations hanging over them. Can only imagine the public backlash someone voting for Vizquel this year could face.

Tony, no worries, you're fine. Didn't take anything you said as a negative. Just thought maybe some people were unaware of what has come out regarding sexual harassment and abuse allegations against Vizquel.

Totally understand and can't disagree with your comment about it being a hall of fame and not a hall of saints though. Because of the timing of these allegations, Vizquel's HOF chances are likely gone for good. But look at the situation of Roberto Alomar, his former teammate and brother of Sandy Alomar Jr., whom Vizquel also played with in Cleveland for many years. Roberto got elected to the HOF in 2011, and then the details of his sexual misconducts and other actions came out and were verified in 2014, a few years after his induction to Cooperstown. There had been rumors of such sexual misconduct prior to his HOF election, but nothing concrete or verified at the time. That, plus his incident of spitting on umpire John Hirschbeck, are what likely kept him from getting elected to the HOF in 2010, the first year he was eligible.

After the 2014 allegations came out and were investigated and verified by MLB, Alomar's position as a consultant to MLB was terminated, and he was permanently placed on MLB's ineligible list, the same list that Joe Jackson and Pete Rose are on that keeps them from getting elected to the HOF. Yet the HOF leaves Alomar's plaque on the wall, and has no plans of ever removing it. So there is a lot of truth to your comment.

According the the Hall of Fame Tracker site, Vizquel currently has received 17 votes from ballots that have been made public, but he has lost votes from 42 voters who had previously voted for him. No first time voters have voted for him so far. He's obviously not getting elected this year (if ever), but looks like he may make it to 5% and stay on the ballot.

Huh, surprising to me. Would think a voter wouldn't want to get blasted for voting for him. Stranger things have happened. Thanks for sharing.

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?

The Shadow does................... :o

Indeed.

You know, we just showed the youngsters on here how we're a couple of old fogies, as I'm guessing very few, if any, got the reference. LOL

Before my time, but I believe it was one of Orson Welles' first roles.

Vizquel is looking at potentially the highest single-year drop in vote % ever. I don't know that he doesn't get in someday...look at Andruw Jones vote totals...

Name that candidate. Admittedly, he does better on WAR.

Hall of Fame Statistics
Black Ink
Batting - 10 (299), Average HOFer ≈ 27
Gray Ink
Batting - 47 (676), Average HOFer ≈ 144
Hall of Fame Monitor
Batting - 109 (151), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards
Batting - 34 (249), Average HOFer ≈ 50

Schilling only at 60 percent. Forget the right wing stuff, was Roy Halladay better than Schilling? John Smoltz? Don Drysdale? Catfish Hunter? Jack Morris? Jim Kaat?

Schilling asked to be removed from the ballot, I would laugh if the writers voted him in, just out of spite lol

When he said that last year, my first thought was he was trying reverse psychology.

You know, that might actually be a very good point about Schilling. LOL

Looks Ortiz is the only one with a good chance based on this. Bonds and Clemes are barely over 75% and the end result is usually lower than the early public ballots, so they aren't likely. Ortiz is borderline at this point, I'll get a good laugh if he gets in and the other roiders who were much better players get shoveled to the eras committee's instead.

Vizquel and Schilling will slide back for things that have nothing to do with performance. Accusations of sexually harassing batboys and beating women appears to be punished a bit more than being vocal about political views the hall voter base does not like, so far.

Jeff Kent continues to get no credit.

One thing I haven't seen brought up much in the Ortiz roids discussion, and maybe I just haven't read enough, is the big jump in his power stats upon moving to Boston.

Yes, and he tested positive in 2003.

His power explosion times perfectly with his failed test. But Ortiz is held to a completely different standard from everyone else. So is Schilling, for very different reasons.

The Hall has generally done a good job, I think, of rewarding performance. Some players took more ballots than they should have, some borderline guys are in and some out (which seems unavoidable, when you are down to the borderline players the differences are tiny and there logically must be a line somewhere) but the general standards have been followed well. Players who were not popular or well-liked have historically still gotten in if their performance merited it (Dick Allen is taking too long). Hell, Cepeda was a drug trafficker who was also arrested for threatening a man with a gun AND a borderline candidate and got in by the Vets committee, as most borderline players of his caliber eventually do.

This ballot seems to represent a clear shift, with baseball performance having a much smaller role in the results than it has historically. Schilling is a vocal conservative with much negative press from the voter base that generally has the opposite politics and seems to (as some voters have written openly about) be punished for this (if one wants to claim it's because Schilling requested to be kept off after being snubbed for 9 years, he was still punished for this for the first 9 years). Clemens and Bonds are kept out for steroids but more voters seem happy to ignore that Ortiz is guilty too because he's likable and doesn't have the reputational, attitude and woman-related accusations Bonds and Clemens do (well he does, with the restraining order after intimidating and threatening his ex, but again, the standards are different for Ortiz). Vizquel's nomination, who faces serious charges of sexual and woman-beating misconduct, went from likely to completely dead.

The counter-argument of the character clause is usually brought up about now, but it has never been used for off-the-field conduct to dismiss candidates before. Nor does it seem relevant to giving Ortiz preferential treatment while keeping out better players guilty of the same thing. At least Bonds and Clemens were Hall of Fame quality players before they starting dosing.

Bonds, Clemens, and ARod are three of the greatest players of all time, but at least as they have interacted with the baseball world are PR disasters and widely regarded as A holes. Ortiz isn't even close to their talent or achievement level, but he is a smiling, positive, beloved figure. Hell, IMO having watched them both he's a clear notch below Manny, another PR disaster. It seems to make all the difference in the world. Just spin and flip whatever argument you want to make to justify the result.

It certainly seems to make all the difference in the world, looking at the present dataset. I think this is a marked shift from how Hall voting has worked before (what unlikable player before recent voting has been kept out of the Hall because he isn't very likable? Dick Allen has an argument for this. I really can't think of another example myself, there may be one). Further, it seems more than 'normal likability', as it is Ortiz being forgiven and literally every other 'confirmed user' being punished. It's an astounding double standard for one man and one man only. If Ortiz is put in, a whole lot of other guys have to be put in too.

It may be why Dick Allen didn't make it but hard to prove because performance wise he's fairly borderline. I can't think of another example.

I've come around to the Pro-Allen camp on the strength of his rate stats and adjusted to context figures. His counting stats, what the voters were using for most of his candidacies, are not very good (well, not very good from a hall of fame standard) and similar to many players not in the hall of fame. Difficult to discern if this is why, or if his attitude problems were a deciding factor. I suspect he will make it next time the committee meets.

It worked for Harry Carson.

it's not up to the baseball writers to erase a whole era of baseball history and to punish these guys retroactively even though these same writers knew what was going on as it was happening. if the owners/commissioner/powers that be were turning a blind eyes to what the players were doing because of how profitable it was, then the voters should accept that fact and vote these guys in!

it's a mockery that recent guys like baines, rice, and dawson are in and bonds and clemens are not...but life's not fair and i don't think either will make it by the end of the day.

Make a note:

Prince Fielder only got two more votes than I did.




.