Players Voted in With 100%

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

I was looking over the list of inducted members, and I noticed that no one has ever been voted in with 100%. In 1982, for example, Hank Aaron recieved a vote on 406/415 ballots (97.83%). This means that 9 writers thought that there were 10 others in that year that were more worthy than Aaron of the hall. What's up with that?

[WhiteSoxSteve]

Some writers won't vote in anybody on the first ballot.

[candy curveball cummings]

I was looking over the list of inducted members, and I noticed that no one has ever been voted in with 100%. In 1982, for example, Hank Aaron recieved a vote on 406/415 ballots (97.83%). This means that 9 writers thought that there were 10 others in that year that were more worthy than Aaron of the hall. What's up with that?

The highest percentage belongs to Tom Seaver, who missed being perfect by just 5 votes.

I think WhiteSoxSteve hit it on the head. Some voters are real sticklers and don't think anyone deserves a "perfect" score. I've actually heard that, because people left Babe Ruth off their ballots, some of today's voters refuse to allow any player to be the "perfect" guy. They are punishing players because of what happened to Babe Ruth. Ridiculous.

[EvanAparra]

The highest percentage belongs to Tom Seaver, who missed being perfect by just 5 votes.

I think WhiteSoxSteve hit it on the head. Some voters are real sticklers and don't think anyone deserves a "perfect" score. I've actually heard that, because people left Babe Ruth off their ballots, some of today's voters refuse to allow any player to be the "perfect" guy. They are punishing players because of what happened to Babe Ruth. Ridiculous.

Its going to be ridiculous when some leave Maddux off their ballots.

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

I agree. There are many people who are no-doubt HOF'ers, and deserve to be on all of the ballots. I couldn't believe that Aaron didn't get it. I'm not saying that he's the best ever, but does anybody in the entire world question his HOF induction? Didn't think so.

[KCGHOST]

In the early days of HoF voting you could understand why this happened. Just so many great players eligible for the voting could cause all kinds of goofy things to happen. But, now that there is no real backlog of great players (certainly not ten) there is no excuse for a writer leaving a deserving player off the ballot.

[DoubleX]

I don't think anyone will ever get 100% because there are so many ballots and you're bound to get at least one guy that for whatever reason, doesn't feel the need to vote for a player, no matter how deserving.

If any player in the near future is to challenge Seaver's mark, I'd say it's Cal Ripken Jr this year, and Roger Clemens whenever he's eligible.

[pesky6]

Remember, these are the same people who have voted for Rick Honeycutt and Danny Tartabull. There are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of threads on this board criticizing the writers (and "writefully" so. . . ha ha).

[political comment/joke deleted]

Seriously, though. . . we just have to remember it's the writers we're talking about.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Just remember, though, in a few polls of this nature on this site, I don't believe we've had anyone unanimous, either.
To continue to the astonishment of Hank Aaron not receiving nine votes, three years earlier, Willie Mays, who is generally regarded as being the greater of the two, was nowhere to be found on 23 ballots.
I highly doubt, though, the voters not voting for Aaron, mays, Seaver, etc. were turning in full ballots. It was writers turning in blank ballots that cost Jim Bunning election via the writers.