Will Cal Ripken be the first unanimous HOF choice?

gregmo32

And if not, what will his percentage be?

megatron

No, he will not be.

And here is a bold prediction - Tony Gwynn will get a higher %.

My prediction for Cal - 86%

Brian48

You'll never have a unanimous choice. You're always going to have one idiot writer who will want to make a statement of some sort.

ziggy29

<< <i>You'll never have a unanimous choice. You're always going to have one idiot writer who will want to make a statement of some sort. >>

Agreed. I also think Gwynn will get a higher total.

Ripken was a very solid player and well-deserving of first-ballot entry, but a lot of his mystique was in The Streak which I believe makes people overrate him somewhat. (Not that he's still not great and a first-ballot HOFer, just not AS "all time greatest" as The Streak has some people believing, IMO.)

gregmo32

How many voters are there? I want to figure out how many percentage points each vote is worth. (For example, if all but one guy votes for Cal or Gwynn, the total would be 99.4 %, etc). Does anyone know?

ctsoxfan

<< <i>You'll never have a unanimous choice. You're always going to have one idiot writer who will want to make a statement of some sort. >>




Right on the money, Brian - I just saw this over on the Card forum, there is a wingnut writer from Chicago with an agenda of his own:



<< <i>Cal Ripken Jr. won't be the first unanimous selection to baseball's Hall of Fame when the results are announced at 2 p.m. Tuesday. That's a certainty because Paul Ladewski of a suburban Chicago newspaper has revealed that he submitted a blank ballot because he doesn't have enough information to consider the merits of any players from the steroids era (1993-2004). He told the Baltimore Sun that he doesn't suspect Ripken or Tony Gwynn of using performance-enhancing drugs, but that he can't be sure they didn't. >>



So, there goes that.

MantleMarisFordBerra

I think the streak causes people to under estimate Ripken. I think it causes people to over look his Rookie of the Year, 2 MVPs, leading his team to the World Series Championship, the fielding records he set, all the All-Star game apperances( he won one All-Star MVP) also he redefined the position of shortstop...think about it, before him most shortstops were small, poor hitting. Ripken was tall, quick, and brought the bat along with the glove.

Plus there are a lot of other elements that make him a Hall of famer too that relate to the "character" aspect players are voted on. Having the Ripken family, all the work he's done in the Baltimore area, being on one team his whole life, his GREAT personality, how he brought back fans to the game after the '94 strike...if Ripken never sets the streak record he is still a first ballot HOF no question.

ToppsCo1lector

<< <i>I think the streak causes people to under estimate Ripken. I think it causes people to over look his Rookie of the Year, 2 MVPs, leading his team to the World Series Championship, the fielding records he set, all the All-Star game apperances( he won one All-Star MVP) also he redefined the position of shortstop...think about it, before him most shortstops were small, poor hitting. Ripken was tall, quick, and brought the bat along with the glove.

Plus there are a lot of other elements that make him a Hall of famer too that relate to the "character" aspect players are voted on. Having the Ripken family, all the work he's done in the Baltimore area, being on one team his whole life, his GREAT personality, how he brought back fans to the game after the '94 strike...if Ripken never sets the streak record he is still a first ballot HOF no question. >>



Most weren't poor hitter, the just weren't power hitters as Ripken was. He opened up the position to guys like Tejada, ARod etc. Certainly a first ballot HOF'er, I don't think any fan would ever queston that.

gregmo32

I heard a writer say on TV that he voted for a "bunch of guys" - "about nine," he said. And followed this by saying, "I don't think I can remember them all off the top of my head." Could it be that many writers just don't take this whole thing as seriously as we do, or as much as we'd like them to?

Writer11

<< <i>How many voters are there? I want to figure out how many percentage points each vote is worth. (For example, if all but one guy votes for Cal or Gwynn, the total would be 99.4 %, etc). Does anyone know? >>




Greg:

Last year there were 520 baseball writers who submitted ballots.

To answer your question about how serious writers take the voting: I think it is just like any other segment of society: some scribes are so intensely serious that they will not vote for anyone who doesn't have Ruthian numbers, most writers devote ample time and effort to the process, and others just vote for players that they like. Heck, Jim Deshaises (sp?) received a vote a couple of years ago.

But one thing I have noticed is the "Bruce Sutter effect." Many writers have moved Lee Smith up on their ballot. And it's looking like Gossage will finally get the call this year.

With all the talk about Blyleven (287 career wins), a lot of people have added Tommy John (290 wins) to their ballots as well.

gregmo32

Ok, so if there are 520 voters, each vote is worth about .2% of the total. This means that, since the doofus voter already announced that he did not vote for anyone this year because of the steroid issue, the most Cal or Gwynn can get is 99.8%. I guess a better way of asking the question now is, "How many voters out of 520 will not vote for Gwynn or Ripken?"

megatron

Greg,

One other thing to consider is that the voters have a limited number of votes. Having stated that, read the following scenario to understand how all HOF'ers have ended up with less than 100%, esp. in modern times.

A voter has 10 votes (let's say this), but has 11 guys that he wants to vote for. One of these guys is Tony Gwynn. It is a definite that Gwynn gets in and this voter believes his vote for Gwynn won't matter. Thus, he withholds his voting from Gwynn to give it to Tommy John/Lee Smith/Bert Blyleven/ or Andre Dawson, who has had a tough time getting in.

Have a few voters do this and the outcome is less than 100%, although their opinion of the player hasn't changed.

gregmo32

Megatron,

That is an interesting fact that I had not heard before. I did not realize that there was a limit to the amount candidates one could choose. That does account for a few of the sub-100% players out there I am sure.

On the other hand, there can't be that many writers who think there are more than ten deserving candidates in a year, can there?

megatron

Actually,

Skinpinch could do a much better job answering your questions about voter habits. He is asolutely terrific in coming up with these types of stats.

In reading Bill James' Book "Whatever Happened to the HOF?", James stated that for the longest time, no one got into the HOF. Then, voters tried to make up for lost time by voting in people who should not have gotten in. Remember, in the old days, there was no Veterans' Committee.

onlyanumber

<< <i>Megatron,

That is an interesting fact that I had not heard before. I did not realize that there was a limit to the amount candidates one could choose. That does account for a few of the sub-100% players out there I am sure.

On the other hand, there can't be that many writers who think there are more than ten deserving candidates in a year, can there? >>



Don't forget to factor in the votes for players whose time is up. We should see an increase in voting for Garvey this year as this is his last year on the ballot. Someone may take a Gwynn/Ripken vote (knowing they're locks) and give it to Garvey. Or on the flip side, a candidate who is so borderline to remain on the ballot may get those sympathy votes to keep him around another year.

Writer11

<< <i>

<< <i>Megatron,

That is an interesting fact that I had not heard before. I did not realize that there was a limit to the amount candidates one could choose. That does account for a few of the sub-100% players out there I am sure.

On the other hand, there can't be that many writers who think there are more than ten deserving candidates in a year, can there? >>



Don't forget to factor in the votes for players whose time is up. We should see an increase in voting for Garvey this year as this is his last year on the ballot. Someone may take a Gwynn/Ripken vote (knowing they're locks) and give it to Garvey. Or on the flip side, a candidate who is so borderline to remain on the ballot may get those sympathy votes to keep him around another year. >>



Ditto for Concepcion, although he has one more year on the ballot after this.

grote15

I don't believe he'll approach Seaver's record of 98%, in fact, I doubt he gets more votes than Gwynn does. Ripken was a tremendous player who transformed the shortstop position to a power position, but he was not always the most popular guy on the team, due to his desire to travel apart from the team and the perception by some that "the Streak" itself was selfish and not in the best interests of the team at the time in the latter years.

gregmo32

Ripken will get 98.6% and Gwynn will get 98.2%. Goose will get 76.2% On the outside looking in will be Dawson 72.2% Rice 71.6%. Those are my picks.

megatron

Very good article in the Boston Globe

Tommy Lasorda chortles at the thought that Joe DiMaggio wasn't voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame on the first ballot.

"What were those sportswriters drinking?" said Lasorda, one of 16 managers in the Hall of Fame. "How in the [expletive] can you leave DiMaggio off in the first ballot? He only hit in 56 straight games and hit .325 for his career. Are you kidding me? Some of the stuff makes you scratch your head. Crazy, I say."

DiMaggio wasn't elected until his third year of eligibility, but there's more to that story, and we'll get back to it later.

The bottom line is that there have been quirks in the voting through the years, and nobody ever said that voters always got it right. But they usually do. "I think we've done a very honorable job," said a longtime voter and past officer of the Baseball Writers Association of America.

Lasorda, Dennis Eckersley, Jim Rice, and many players will tell you that not enough people have been enshrined. Rice, though his candidacy has picked up steam, is still struggling for the elusive honor, which might came today when the latest voting results are announced, though competing with Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken might prolong his wait another year.

A reason Rice is picking up steam is that this is the first year voters are faced with an otherwise strong candidate suspected of using steroids, Mark McGwire. Rice might have gotten votes that would have gone to McGwire. Polls by ESPN and the Associated Press indicate McGwire won't garner more than 25-30 percent, far short of the 75 percent required for induction.

McGwire retired after the 2001 season, averaging a homer every 10.61 at-bats, a record pace. But he played before there was steroid testing. McGwire has admitted to using androstenedione, an over-the-counter supplement that was not banned by Major League Baseball. He was tainted by his appearance at a House Government Reform Committee in 2005 when he refused to answer questions about whether he'd taken steroids.

A former teammate who has admitted his use of steroids, Jose Canseco, is also on the Hall ballot for the first time. He wrote in his book "Juiced" that he injected McGwire with a steroid while they were with the A's.

The McGwire case will be the first major controversy involving Hall of Fame voting since Pete Rose, the all-time hit leader who was banned from the sport because he bet on baseball and can't even appear on the ballot.

Asked whether McGwire should be voted in, Lasorda responded the same way McGwire did a couple of years ago: "I have no comment on that."

It also will be interesting to see whether any votes are cast for Canseco. He hit 462 home runs, was the first 40-40 player in baseball history, and won the 1988 American League MVP award. His athleticism never was questioned. He could do things that McGwire couldn't. But he admitted using. McGwire never has fessed up to it.

I haven't talked to Mark for a long time," said one of his former A's teammates, "but from what I hear from our mutual friends, Mark doesn't care whether he's in the Hall or not. He just wants this first year to happen, let the controversy take its course, and then fly under the radar. He's a very private person and he has no intention of ever making this a big part of his life."

But Rice said simply, "If you cheated, you don't belong in the Hall of Fame."

The intangibles of voting
Only writers who have been a member of the BBWAA for 10 or more years are allowed to vote for the Hall of Fame. Last year, 520 ballots were cast.

While there are BBWAA voters who never will vote for McGwire, others don't go so far as to say he'll never get in. Under the voting guidelines, a player can stay on the ballot for up to 15 years as long as he garners 5 percent of the vote. Thereafter, a Veterans Committee made up of living Hall of Famers, winners of the J.G. Taylor Spink Award (sportswriters), and winners of the Ford C. Frick Award (broadcasters) can vote players in on a second-chance basis.

With the federal steroid investigations, and the probe being led by former Senator George Mitchell on behalf of Major League Baseball, information eventually will trickle out on current players and those from the 1980s and 1990s who performed with illegal enhancement. At least that's the hope.

If McGwire weren't under suspicion -- and voters didn't have to consider the "character" aspect, as specified by the voting guidelines -- most agree he'd be a first-ballot Hall of Famer.

That brings us back to DiMaggio's quirky case.

The story goes that after DiMaggio retired at age 37 in 1951, some writers believed that he might return to the game. In fact, the Yankees offered him a big contract for 1952, but he declined.

At the time, players who had put in 10 years in the majors were eligible for the ballot just one year after leaving the game.

While many thought DiMaggio would get in on the first ballot, the sentiment expressed by Joe Williams of the World-Telegram in 1953 caught on. He wrote, "My vote will make small difference, but as a protest to putting him ahead of others I deem equally deserving, and menaced by the calendar, I'm not joining in the landslide for DiMaggio. His ultimate position is secure, he is young and a few years away won't hurt."

DiMaggio received only 117 votes (43.3 percent) when he would have needed 198 for election. Bill Roeder of The New York Times wrote that voters felt DiMaggio "was not sufficiently dry behind the ears."

Page 3 of 3 --It's obvious DiMaggio must have ticked off some scribes. Writers instead voted for players who had been on the ballot much longer. Dizzy Dean and Al Simmons were elected in 1953.

In '54, DiMaggio garnered 175 votes (69.44 percent), but watched as Rabbit Maranville, Bill Dickey, and Bill Terry were inducted.

The third time was a charm, however. DiMaggio got 88.84 percent of the vote in 1955 (223 of 251 ballots cast) and went in with Ted Lyons, Dazzy Vance, and Gabby Hartnett.

In '53, the BBWAA changed the eligibility rules to require that players be retired for five seasons, but players who had received at least 100 votes were grandfathered in.


A second chance
Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, Walter Johnson, and Christy Mathewson were the first class of players ever elected, on Jan. 29, 1936. Because BBWAA members voted only for 20th century players -- while a veterans committee voted for players before the turn of the century -- Cy Young didn't get in on the first ballot. After the voting guidelines were changed, Young, who won 511 games, got in.

There's the case of Tom Seaver, who had the highest percentage ever: 98.84 in 1992. Seaver was named on all but five ballots that year. According to Hall of Fame publicist Jeff Idelson, three voters handed in blank ballots to protest Rose's disqualification. Another writer didn't cast his ballot because he had heart surgery, and the fifth indicated he was against voting for first-time eligibles.

Nolan Ryan has garnered the highest vote total, 491, and is second to Seaver in percentage with 98.79. Some think Ripken could exceed Seaver and/or Ryan this time.

Former Dodgers first baseman and Mets manager Gil Hodges stands as the man who has garnered the most total votes (3,010) in his 15 years of eligibility and didn't get in. Jim Bunning had held that distinction (3,213 votes) until the Veterans Committee elected him.

While Hall voters are sometimes criticized by ex-players for being too tough, the Veterans Committee has not elected anyone in its last two votes, which are taken every two years. Leading candidates for the veterans this time are Hodges, Cubs third baseman Ron Santo, Twins outfielder Tony Oliva, and lefthander Jim Kaat. Those results will be announced Feb. 27. Also making a surge is Joe Torre, who is still eligible as a player though not as a manager. Managers Dick Williams and Whitey Herzog are also up for consideration by the veterans.

While Luis Tiant is considered one of the biggest money pitchers of his era, he didn't get a lot of support from the Veterans Committee in the first year he was eligible for its ballot, 2005. He was named on only 25 percent of the ballots.

"It's supposed to be difficult to get in," said Lasorda. "It's supposed to be the best of the best. But I think there are guys who in my opinion were the best, and haven't got in."

Eckersley, who earned induction in 2004, said, "It's too hard. There are players who had great careers and put up great numbers who haven't gotten a sniff. I'm hoping some guys get there through the Veterans Committee."

Lasorda puts Rice and his former Dodgers first baseman, Steve Garvey, who enters his final year of eligibility, in that category.

The voting in most professional sports has its flaws. And if McGwire is not elected, his omission certainly will be a curiosity years from now. But the Steroid Era itself will have its own quirky place in history, too.

BobaFett72

personally, both Ripken and Gwynn should be 100%, but that wont happen. two very classy, top line players; both were phenomenal representatives fo the game.

megatron

Greg,

You were pretty close.

"Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken Jr. are now officially Hall of Famers.

Gwynn, who received 97.6 percent of the vote, and Ripken -- who received 98.53 percent, the third-highest balloting in history -- have been elected to baseball's Hall of Fame.

Goose Gossage was third with 71.2 percent of the vote, falling just short of the 75 percent needed. Mark McGwire, who received 23.5 percent of the vote, has failed to be admitted.

The induction will take playce July 29 in Cooperstown."

MeteoriteGuy

Nice picks Gregmo32,

Numbers were a little off, but your pick order was right on.

Mark

greencrow

Happy birthday Cal!