2022 Baseball Hall of Fame - tracker

[Dead-Ball-Hitter]

50% of the ballots published. So Far:

Ortiz 83.7%
Bonds 78.1%
Clemens 77.0%

Let's go Big Papi... Love to sell your signed cards for some $$... Daddy needs a new pair of Red Hindu's!

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Dead-Ball-Hitter

50% of the ballots published. So Far:



Ortiz 83.7%

Bonds 78.1%

Clemens 77.0%



Let's go Big Papi... Love to sell your signed cards for some $$... Daddy needs a new pair of Red Hindu's!

Last year both Bonds and Clemens dropped by over 11% from public tally to the final. Ortiz is making it very close, but if the private votes have the same trend he will just miss.

[Dead-Ball-Hitter]

Voters can place up to 10 votes:

Nick Canepa, San Diego Tribune, voted for..... no one!
Michael Hunt submits a blank ballot (again)!
Dan Shaughnessy, grumpiest writer in BBWAA, votes for Jeff Kent only
Steve Simmons votes only for Andruw Jones and Curt (take me off the ballot) Shilling
Mark Purdy, Mercury News, votes only for Billy Wagner


Interesting....

[skelly423]

Originally Posted by Dead-Ball-Hitter

Voters can place up to 10 votes:

Nick Canepa, San Diego Tribune, voted for..... no one!
Michael Hunt submits a blank ballot (again)
Dan Shaughnessy, grumpiest writer in BBWAA, votes for Jeff Kent only
Steve Simmons votes only for Andruw Jones and Curt (take me off the ballot) Shilling
Mark Purdy, Mercury News, votes only for Billy Wagner


Interesting....

Steve Simmons is a well known troll in Canadian media. He isn't qualified to vote for American Idol, much less the Hall of Fame. If they want to clean up the Hall of Fame, maybe they should start with better vetting of the voters.

[abothebear]

On not voting for players on the first ballot, but voting for them later. people view voting differently. Observers want it to be an exercise in objectivity. Who should be in, who shouldn't be, mark your ballot accordingly. But when voters themselves, when they get behind the ballot, so to speak (and we know this from Federal level elections), approach it in a variety of ways. In this particular situation where voting changes from year to year, depending in part on the length of time a player is on the ballot, I think some voters don't view a non-yes vote as a no vote. They aren't ready to vote yes, but that doesn't mean they think they don't belong. They either aren't sure yet, or just aren't ready to be sure.

On steroid era PED cheating. Some say, so many cheated, you can't sort em out, accept those things as context and vote as if it doesn't matter. Sure, but why not say, so many cheated, you can't sort em out, accept those things as context and vote against the whole era? It is just as valid an argument. Or sort em out as best you can. Or sort em out as lazily and inconsistently as you can. It is voting, not a logarithmic computer program.

A constant line of arguing about these matters is an appeal to consistency (or inconsistency). If players in other eras did x and got in, shouldn't players in this era that did y get in? Or, player A did bad thing X and got in, player B who did bad thing Y ought to get in. Or player A got away with it, so it isn't fair that player B is left in the cold. It is fun to argue about these things, but the HOF isn't a board of consistency management. Players enter based on votes from voters. Voters today didn't vote on amphetamine users in the 60s. They aren't responsible for being consistent with voter results from 40 years ago. They aren't even responsible for being consistent with votes they may have cast 5 or 10 years ago themselves. People change their minds. They aren't and shouldn't be beholden to consistency to a previous vote. What the collective group of voters did in past years has very little bearing on what an individual voter is voting on in the present. And we shouldn't want that. Do we want the veterans committee electing everyone as good as Harold Baines because we demand consistency? I am happy for Harold. He is legit a HOFer now. But I also think it would be a mistake for Harold Baines' career stats to become the measure of HOFness. Because a steroid user is in is irrelevant to if another steroid user should get in. Because a bad guy is in is irrelevant to if another bad guy should get in. Because 60s stars used PEDs is irrelevant to if 2000s PED using stars should get in. It is fun to argue about and make comparisons and conjectures but should is not part of it.

That being said, Lou Whitaker should be a HOFer.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by Dead-Ball-Hitter

Voters can place up to 10 votes:

Nick Canepa, San Diego Tribune, voted for..... no one!
Michael Hunt submits a blank ballot (again)!
Dan Shaughnessy, grumpiest writer in BBWAA, votes for Jeff Kent only
Steve Simmons votes only for Andruw Jones and Curt (take me off the ballot) Shilling
Mark Purdy, Mercury News, votes only for Billy Wagner


Interesting....

Shaughnessy is the hack to end all hacks. The Globe should be embarrassed to employ him. I'm pretty sure the other writers that work there are...

This is what happens when we turn the HOF ballot into the morality police. Who did what? When? Who was clean? A Boy Scout?

Shaughnessy votes for Kent because he "knows" he's clean. I mean, we can't know. Pretending we can is absurd.

Not for nothing, but Kent had a 107 career OPS+ heading into his age 29 season...when he became teammates with a guy named Bonds. For the rest of his career, his OPS+ was 128 and he hit 299 of his 377 career home runs.

I'm in no way implying that Kent used PEDs...I have no idea. I'm just saying that saying "THIS is the guy I can vote for in good conscience" is pretty dumb.