Will we ever see a unanimous HOF vote?

[Defense Counts!]

Two questions for those who know about these things:

1) Why weren't Babe Ruth (and, for that matter, Ty Cobb and Cy Young) unanimous selections for the HOF? Do we have any quotes from those who didn't vote for them?

and ...

2) Is the fact that Ruth wasn't a unanimous selection given as the reason why modern sportswriters didn't vote for Hank Aaron and Willie Mays? I don't see how anyone can not vote for these guys!

[1905 Giants]

2) Is the fact that Ruth wasn't a unanimous selection given as the reason why modern sportswriters didn't vote for Hank Aaron and Willie Mays? I don't see how anyone can not vote for these guys!

Well, as for Ruth, I read about when the first man didn't vote was tallied that didn't mention him: They turned to the guy and argued for 5 minutes about why they left him off the list

[cbenson5]

Ty Cobb beat Ruth in votes, and Cy Young didn't make the cut in the 1936 election.

[KCGHOST]

The early voters had so many great players to chose from that it made it almost impossible to get a unanimous vote. The voters had a large backlog of players who were eligible for the ballot. Cy Young didn't get elected in the first year due to this backlog.

By today's rules Ruth wouldn't even have been on the ballot as he hadn't been retired 5 years.

[MyDogSparty]

I've always heard that the reason modern players don't get a unanimous selection is because Joe DiMaggio didn't get in on his "first ballot". Hence, some of the voting baseball writers have always held a grudge that says "If Joe DiMaggio can't make it on the first ballot then I'm not voting for anyone on their first ballot."

[bluezebra]

Simple. The voters (BBWA sportswriters) are jerks.

Bob

[Freakshow]

To quote Al Campanis, baseball writers "may not have some of the necessities to be, let's say," a voter for the hall of fame.

[flash143817]

Because sportswriters are pompous and want to act like they actually have a say in the game when they really shouldn't.

[CTaka]

Some writers (can't remember their names off the top of my head) said that since it was a given that "x" was going to be elected in their first year, they wanted to use their votes for other players to "make their own statement" about the validity of their choices.

If Mays and Aaron couldn't make it on a unanimous vote, I don't see how anyone can.

[sturg1dj]

there were a few writers who thought nobody should get 100% expecially since Ruth and Cobb didn't. There are also some who believe no player should get in on their first try. That is why nobody has ever been 100%.

I originally thought racism when it came to Aaron and Mays, but then I looked at them all and realized nobody got 100%. Then I heard on TV about this. Makes sense, I guess.

[Freakshow]

In this day and age, it would be the easiest thing to publish every voter's ballot. This would establish accountability for idiosyncratic, unjustifiable travesties to the voting process.

Remember, this isn't a presidential election or anything that justifies having secret ballots. This is a privileged electorate, given the task because they are deemed to be those best fit, with expertise exceeding your's or mine. IMO, their results belie this description.

If the HOF is fixed in this marriage with the BBWAA, at least they could bring accountability to the process. The worst perpetrators would be outed; most of these would bow to the resulting pressures and would either change their ways or resign.

Open balloting for the HOF - the time has come. What do they have to hide?

[538280]

There are many startling trends in BBWAA voting that make you think twice about whether these people are "knowledgeable" or not:

1.Like this thread says, lack of respect for clear cut HOFers. This tells me that many writers just aren't taking the vote seriously. It should be an honest inquiry of who you think is deserving, not asking who you liked the best or something. I have no sympathy for those sportswriters who leave an obvious guy off their ballot because they didn't like them or something like that.

2.Failure to look beyond the triple crown numbers. If you look at trends in voting, it's rather simple who gets in-the guys with impressive BA, HR, and RBI. This trend also shows up in MVP voting. The writers are so fixated on those three statistics than they hardly focus on what else a player can do. Perhaps this trend is reversing, though, as a player like Jim Rice (classic case of gaudy triple crown numbers but little actual value) is rightfully coming up short.

3.I've always wondered this-why exactly do so many players start off with about 20% of the vote and then climb up to eventual election? Who cares about the distinction between "first ballot HOFer", and non first ballot? The HOF standard should be a constant, if a guy is good enough one year he should be good enough the next, and if a guy is not good enough one year he should be not good enough the next. I understand some writers change their mind, and that is perfectly fine, but the huge jumps in the voting puzzle me.

4.This one is related to the last one, but it is perhaps the most troubling trend to me. I've never understood why it matters who else is one the HOF ballot. For instance, I heard sportswriters last year saying they would vote for Jim Rice, but this is the last year he'll have a shot because of obvious HOFers like Ripken and Gwynn coming up next year. This to me shows that the writers don't truly even understand the standard of the HOF. It should not be something that changes from year to year-but rather should be a constant that never wavers. The line that separates HOFer from non HOFer should not all of the sudden go up with Ripken and Gwynn, it should remain the same. Considering there is no limit of how many candidates you can vote for (or at least I don't think there is, or even if there is I'm sure it's not less than 8 or so), I don't understand why the other people on the ballot effect whether or not you should vote for someone. This to me is perhaps the most disturbing trend in HOF voting.

[jalbright]

I understood there was a limit of ten names. Perhaps I am mistaken. Does anybody have concrete information to point to regarding this issue?

Jim Albright

[538280]

Even if there is a 10 name limit, though, I don't see how that would be low enough to effect whether or not you vote for a player. The two automatics on the ballot make there by 8 spots then, and if you're a Jim Rice supporter (or anyone else for that matter), I don't see how that should change your vote.

[bluezebra]

4. Method of Election

BBWAA Screening Committee — A Screening Committee consisting of baseball writers will be appointed by the BBWAA. This Screening Committee shall consist of six members, with two members to be elected at each Annual Meeting for a three-year term. The duty of the Screening Committee shall be to prepare a ballot listing in alphabetical order eligible candidates who (1) received a vote on a minimum of five percent (5%) of the ballots cast in the preceding election or (2) are eligible for the first time and are nominated by any two of the six members of the BBWAA Screening Committee.
Electors may vote for as few as zero (0) and as many as ten (10) eligible candidates deemed worthy of election. Write-in votes are not permitted.


Bob

[538280]

Thanks for that. Even though there is a 10 man limit, that still wouldn't seem to have much effect on players, unless there are four or five automatic guys. I doubt all that many writers vote for almost 10 guys.

[Biggtone23]

There are now over 500 Hall of Fame voters. You get 500 people to agree on what the weather is like right now.

"Its partly sunny with some clouds"
"No I think its partly cloudy with some sun"
"Your both wrong its beautiful out"
"Its gonna rain I can feel it in my bones"
"Am I outside???"

You can always find reasons for not voting for someone. Examples for recent inductees or soon to be: Ripken's streak hurt his team because he was never at 100%, Gwynn didnt play for enough winners, McGwire I mean come on honestly now who didnt know, Ryan lost too many games and didnt win enough, Molitor and Brett spent too much time at DH, Ozzie, Yount and Boggs had no power.

These are mostly all bull, but this is how they rationalize it. For me honestly I feel if guys like Ruth, DiMaggio and Mantle werent 100% then no one will be.

It would be kind of funny though if some perfect cadidate comes up and all the writers think I'll be the one guy not to vote for him and then no one votes for him and he gets dumped on the first ballot. That idea should make Will Clark and Joe Carter supporters feel a little better. "yeah man thats what happened. Will and Joe got screwed"

[KCGHOST]

I saw this terrific one-liner from the secretary-treasurer of the BBWAA in regards to having no unanimous selectees to the HoF:

"I will say this about unanimity. I don't think it will ever happen, and am not sure that it should. ...... At the risk of being blasphemous, even Jesus did not get a unanimous vote at the Last Supper."

--Jack O'Connell, secretary-treasurer of the BBWAA.

[Biggtone23]

Well He will be right again this year, found this story on Fox

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.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070108/SPORTS0101/701080311/-1/COLUMNS

the story is about half way down.

[The Prowling Cat]

I can't remember the show but a few years ago I was watching something on ESPN I believe. They had a voter on who said that no one will ever get in unanimously. He stated that there are a couple voters who won't vote for certain people to get in just to make sure it doesn't happen. Odds are the guy knew they were getting in as most the world knew the second their names were put on the ballots. Knowing this he is using the whole performance enhancing drugs as a way to explain not doing a proper ballot and keeping people off his back for not voting. Being they are getting in no one will care and he gets the pass. The HOF keeps their no unanimous player intact so everyone leaves happy....

[Williamsburg2599]

Well He will be right again this year, found this story on Fox

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.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070108/SPORTS0101/701080311/-1/COLUMNS

the story is about half way down.
Why even count a blank ballot as a vote? That's rediculous, he shouldn't even be allowed to vote.

[KCGHOST]

Why even count a blank ballot as a vote? That's rediculous, he shouldn't even be allowed to vote.

You have to count it. The guy is saying straight up that no one is worthy to him. In this case he is being silly, but there have been years when only marginal candidates were up and a vote for "no one" made sense.

[Ubiquitous]

Paul Ladewski is a reporter for the Daily Southtown, and he seems to be a Bulls reporter mostly, with the occasional Bears or Sox article.

I would love to find some history on this guy. How long has he had the right to vote, who has he voted for in the past, and has blanked the vote before. I'm willing to bet that this guy has voted on players before right in the teeth of steroids but now many years after the fact he is finally getting around to standing on principals. Of course he does it at a point that practically guarantees him publicity.

[Old Sweater]

Well He will be right again this year, found this story on Fox

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.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070108/SPORTS0101/701080311/-1/COLUMNS

the story is about half way down.


This is ridiculous, no one on the planet knows for sure. 1993-2004 is going to be a big void for Paul Ladewski.

[SamtheBravesFan]

This is ridiculous, no one on the planet knows for sure. 1993-2004 is going to be a big void for Paul Ladewski.

Why stop at 2004?

[Old Sweater]

Why stop at 2004?

Don't know why this writer stopped at 2004. Guess if he stays on the election board Paul will continue to expand the years unless he believes the testing.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Don't know why this writer stopped at 2004. Guess if he stays on the election board Paul will continue to expand the years unless he believes the testing.

I would have thought the era in question would have continued into the present because he picked 1993 at the start - the year that Bonds went to San Francisco.

[2Chance]

"doesn't have enough information...."

Looks like code for "too lazy."

[Freakshow]

You have to count it. The guy is saying straight up that no one is worthy to him. In this case he is being silly, but there have been years when only marginal candidates were up and a vote for "no one" made sense.
Which years were those?

[Ubiquitous]

Which years were those?


I would say last year, 1998, 1997, 1996, possibly 1988, 1985, 1978, and for whatever reasons the voters decided themselves not to elect anyone in 1971 even though Yogi Berra and Ralph Kiner were eligible.

[iPod]

Here is Ladewski's reasoning for sending in a blank ballot.
http://www.dailysouthtown.com/sports/ladewski/201907,081LAD2.article


Besides, what makes Gwynn and Ripken so special that they deserve to be unanimous selections?

Walter Johnson, Cy Young and Honus Wagner didn't receive such Hall passes. Neither did Lou Gehrig, Babe Ruth and Ted Williams. In fact, nobody has in the history of the game.

Based on the standards set by the Hall of Fame voters decades ago, is there a neutral observer out there who can honestly say Gwynn and Ripken should be afforded an unprecedented honor?


Not such a great idea to include that part, in my opinion. Also, it seems silly to me to say the steroid era began in 1993, an obvious reference to Barry Bonds' move west, when we know that Jose Canseco was juicing in the late 1980s.

[AstrosFan]

I would say last year, 1998, 1997, 1996, possibly 1988, 1985, 1978, and for whatever reasons the voters decided themselves not to elect anyone in 1971 even though Yogi Berra and Ralph Kiner were eligible.

Hall of Famers who were snubbed in 1971:

Yogi Berra, Early Wynn, Ralph Kiner, Enos Slaughter, Johnny Mize, Pee Wee Reese, Red Schoendienst, George Kell, Hal Newhouser, Phil Rizzuto, Bob Lemon, Duke Snider, Bobby Doerr, Nellie Fox, Richie Ashburn. Snider got only 89 of 270 possible votes.

[KCGHOST]

Does anybody have a sense of humor?? Nobody found the remark about Christ at the Last Supper funny??

[Mattingly]

Does anybody have a sense of humor?? Nobody found the remark about Christ at the Last Supper funny??
I did. Seemed funny to me, though I wouldn't try it on someone who's very religious and whom I didn't know.

Anyway, the names will be announced at 2pm ET today. :) Count the vote percentage. :D

[The Prowling Cat]

===============================
Quote:
Besides, what makes Gwynn and Ripken so special that they deserve to be unanimous selections?

Walter Johnson, Cy Young and Honus Wagner didn't receive such Hall passes. Neither did Lou Gehrig, Babe Ruth and Ted Williams. In fact, nobody has in the history of the game.

Based on the standards set by the Hall of Fame voters decades ago, is there a neutral observer out there who can honestly say Gwynn and Ripken should be afforded an unprecedented honor?

=============================

Code for as I said in my earlier posting. Those two are getting in and I am making sure it's not unanimous

[digglahhh]

Yeah, this is just ridiculous...

Did this clown vote for Molitor, Yount, Brett? Were Fisk's 25 games in '93 enough to disqualify him?

Ripken won two MVPs before Ladewski''s arbitrary demarcation. Gwynn had won five Gold Gloves and four Batting titles before '93.

If he were to take this stance on guys who played the vast majority of their careers and showed their dominance solely in that era, like say, Jeff Bagwell, I could understand (though not necessarily agree with) the sentiment.

Who knows what the motivations for his positions are. Protecting Babe and Teddy Ballgame by not letting anyone else in? Publicity? I don't know, but this pseudo-moralistic posturing has to stop, and not just from him but the sports world in general

[chrispw1]

I also woner if part of his reasoning may be feeling Ripken and Gwynn knew it was happening as Ripken played with Palmeiro and Gwynn with Caminiti, and didn't say anything or try to do anything about it, which I find silly. Also, will he use it in two years with Rickey Henderson or years from now when non-suspected steroid era players like Jeter, A-Rod, Maddux, Glavine come up?

[Evangelion]

If you can't vote, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Besides, what makes Gwynn and Ripken so special that they deserve to be unanimous selections?

Walter Johnson, Cy Young and Honus Wagner didn't receive such Hall passes. Neither did Lou Gehrig, Babe Ruth and Ted Williams. In fact, nobody has in the history of the game.

Based on the standards set by the Hall of Fame voters decades ago, is there a neutral observer out there who can honestly say Gwynn and Ripken should be afforded an unprecedented honor?
Because of people who feel superior had the great idea not to vote for Ruth, Johnson, Williams and other great players that should have got 100%? People like this writer were the reason they never got 100%. He could just say "I didn't vote, because I didn't feel like it!"

What a joke.

[Erik Bedard]

NO! I'm actually on this guy's side on this one. If he doesn't want to vote for Ripken and Gwynn, then that's absolutely his decision, even if his rationale fails to explain why he didn't vote for Murphy, Blyleven, Dawson, John, or Gossage. And it is NOT a "wasted vote". Not voting for someone carries just as much weight as voting for someone. A "wasted vote" would be either not handing anything in, or not thinking about it, and just automatically checking the boxes marked Ripken and Gwynn. He obviously cares about the game, and thought it through enough that he drew his conclusion, and submitted it, and now he's backing it up. Do any of you have a problem with sportswriters explaining why they voted for Blyleven, John, and Murphy? I hope not. Then why do you have a problem with this guy explaining why he didn't vote for Ripken and Gwynn? Some people would probably rail against him, so he's explaining it before he gets a horse's head in the mail from a Baltimore or San Diego sports fan. I'm not saying I agree with his decision, just saying that he deserves a chance to back it up. He's being stupid here, no doubt, by not voting for Blyleven and the rest, but not voting for Ripken and Gwynn is his decision, and he obviously thought it through. He may be an idiot, but he's an idiot who thinks before being an idiot.

And Evangelion, a non-vote carries exactly as much weight as a vote. So he is definitely voting in this election.

[honus14]

Does anybody have a sense of humor?? Nobody found the remark about Christ at the Last Supper funny??
Christ? I thought he meant Jesus Alou! :laugh

[jeterMVP]

I felt that cal ripken jr. had a very good chance of being the first player unanimously elected to the hall of fame but was not. now i guess it's going to be roger clemens


thoughts?

[W_Marone]

I doubt that anyone will go in unanimously....just becuase of the writers distaste of a unanimously electing someone.

[jalbright]

I doubt anyone will ever get in with 100% of the vote. There's definitely a few folks that think if Ruth, Aaron, etc didn't merit that honor, no one does--and some of them have a vote. You only need one to act on that belief to deny 100%, so unless there's a guy who's 1) better than Ruth (and everybody else) 2) who's untainted by any scandal (which would leave out a modern day Ruth) and 3) who's well-liked by all the sportswriters, it's not going to happen, and might not happen even then.

Jim Albright

[SamtheBravesFan]

I doubt that anyone will go in unanimously....just becuase of the writers distaste of a unanimously electing someone.

That's it. It's completely ludicrous, but that's the case.

[KCGHOST]

That's it. It's completely ludicrous, but that's the case.

Yes, it's ludicrous, but the real fact of the matter is that it isn't important. Afterall Nolan Ryan has the 2nd highest election percentage of anyone in history. That doesn't mean he is the 2nd best pitcher of all-time.

[west coast orange and black]

paul ladewski of the chicago daily southtown submitted an empty ballot, citing the steroid era.
associated press freelancer bill shannon of the sports press service did not vote for either gwynn or ripken because he figured them both to be slam dunks.
those two scenarios, plus that of writers who over the years have ststed that they could never vote for a guy in his first year of eligibility practically guarantee no 100% inductee.

[Appling]

associated press freelancer bill shannon of the sports press service did not vote for either gwynn or ripken because he figured them both to be slam dunks.

Incredible for a writer to omit anyone because they were TOO GOOD!
(Unless he filled his ballot with TEN OTHER NAMES that he felt were also fully qualified for the HOF.)

A blank ballot makes no sense to me --but it happens.

[MetsFan11368]

I seriously doubt it.

Some idiotic writer(s) will always say, well, is such and such were not elected unanimously, then why should this one be? Sad but true.:rolleyes:

[hudsonharden]

If Babe Ruth, Walter Johnson, and Ty Cobb were not unanimous, then I don't see why anyone else will be. I just have a hard believing that Tom Seaver is the most qualified HOFer. Great pitcher, but not the best ever. Any idea of who has a chance to beat that? I have a hard time swallowing an arguement of why one shouldn't vote for Rickey Henderson. But people will undoubtedly send in blank ballots, since Henderson played in the "PED" era.

[mtortolero]

Has Roger Clemmens that chance?

[tearforamariner]

Has Roger Clemmens that chance?

I think Greg Maddux has a better shot at a unanimous election than Clemens. Some people speculate Clemens used PEDs. I think this will take a few votes from him.

[vasprtsfn]

As long as we have writers who think that Tony Fernandez, Gary Disarcina, and Bret Saberhagen are HOF worthy, no one will ever get 100%.

[Williamsburg2599]

Looking ahead a few years, Rickey Henderson has a shot, as the rest of the draft class around him is pretty weak, and I can't see any argument on why he shouldn't be in, unless someone brings up PEDs:rolleyes:

[Appling]

Has Roger Clemmens that chance?
I think he does have a chance!

Whether voted into the Hall or not, every player since Tom Seaver has had some kind of "imperfection". Most recently:
* Cal Ripken Jr. doesn't have a .300 career BA, low OBP and no batting titles.
* Tony Gwynn had little HR power and low RBI's for a corner outfielder.
* Bert Blyleven had great strikeout numbers and good Win Share numbers, but he never reached the magic 300 wins for a pitcher. (He never reached even the 75% vote needed.)

But Clemens seems to have it all: great W-L numbers, multiple Cy Young awards, great strikeout totals. Is there ANYTHING in Roger's history for any voter to pick at? I think not! (He just needs to retire soon enough to avoid any kind of off-field scandal or congressional investigation.)

[brett]

Looking ahead a few years, Rickey Henderson has a shot, as the rest of the draft class around him is pretty weak, and I can't see any argument on why he shouldn't be in, unless someone brings up PEDs:rolleyes:

I think that Maddux could be.

1) Top pitchers tend to be higher in percentage of vote than hitters of the same caliber

2) No real personality issues to get in the way (ala Clemens)

3) Virtually flawless resume. Career and peak value. Gold gloves. Unless people just won't vote for a non-power pitcher he'll be hard to leave off.

I mean, I think that Seaver has the highest percentage ever, and even Seaver was up and down from season to season.

[jalbright]

I think he does have a chance!
.....
But Clemens seems to have it all: great W-L numbers, multiple Cy Young awards, great strikeout totals. Is there ANYTHING in Roger's history for any voter to pick at? I think not! (He just needs to retire soon enough to avoid any kind of off-field scandal or congressional investigation.)

I've seen mention of him and PEDs on this board (I believe there were newspaper reports connecting him to it, later retracted), and how about the World Series brouhaha with the broken bat? He's spent his last years as a high priced gun for hire. I'm not saying Roger isn't worthy of 100%, but I think there's enough there that somebody will choose to leave him off the ballot.

Jim Albright

[Fuzzy Bear]

There's always one idiot who votes against the all time great.

Personally, I'd like to go up to the writers who voted against Willie Mays, slap them, and say "Don't ever do that again!".

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

paul ladewski of the chicago daily southtown submitted an empty ballot, citing the steroid era.
This guy is an idiot. Give someone else his vote, he doesn't deserve it.

There are alot of guys who should have been slam-dunks. Henry Aaron, Willie Mays, etc... I think that if the guys in the beginning had been inducted with 100% it wouldn't be a problem. But there's no precedent, so therefore I don't think it'll happen.

[Tacosaregood/metsguy234]

How did anybody vote for Jose Canseco after he confessedto taking steroids his whole career?

[cashwrapper]

I'm surprised at the thought of Ripken getting in unanimously in the first place. I'm a fan of his, but just because he was a fan favorite, what makes him such a great Hall of Famer?

[Paul McCartney]

I don't see anybody getting voted in unanimously unless it becomes mandatory for all voters to submit thier filled-in ballots.

[Seattle1]

Yeah I doubt we'll ever see anyone go in unanimously.

[ironman]

I'm surprised at the thought of Ripken getting in unanimously in the first place. I'm a fan of his, but just because he was a fan favorite, what makes him such a great Hall of Famer?

The fact that he changed the makeup of shortstops, his streak, 3000 hits And 400+ home runs, and most importantly saving the game after the strike

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

The fact that he changed the makeup of shortstops, his streak, 3000 hits And 400+ home runs, and most importantly saving the game after the strikeAre you Cal Ripken :laugh???

But seriously, I agree with you. The streak alone is enough for him to make it in. All the other stuff makes him worthy of 100% (which we all know he didn't get).

[milladrive]

I tend to agree with the consensus. It's doubtful that anyone will be elected unanimously. ...that is, at least until the ballots are taken away from the BBWAA.

[Dalkowski110]

No...because there's ALWAYS going to be some idiot or fly in the ointment who happens to be a member of the BBWAA.

[sds416]

I'll agree on the never happen theory. All it takes is for 1 guy to get a bug up his butt and it puts it out the window. Ripken got as close as I think anyone is going to for the next 50 years.

[dgarza]

paul ladewski of the chicago daily southtown submitted an empty ballot, citing the steroid era.

Which is either a cop-out, ignorance, or plain out BS. Since when did Dale Murphy, Jim Rice, Goose Gossage, etc become associated with the steriod era? Has Paul Ladewski never heard on the 70s?

[ChrisLDuncan]

Alex Rodriguez.

[Williamsburg2599]

Alex Rodriguez.
Not if he keeps performing the way he does in the playoffs. Do I think it's a big enough issue to keep him out of the HOF? Probably not. But somebody from the BBWAA probably will.

[milladrive]

Alex Rodriguez.

Mark my words, A-Rod will not be unanimous.

[Defense Counts!]

There's always one idiot who votes against the all time great.

Personally, I'd like to go up to the writers who voted against Willie Mays, slap them, and say "Don't ever do that again!".

I agree completely. And add Hank Aaron.

As someone else stated on this board, the job of the writers is simply to decide if a player is worthy or not, NOT TO RANK THEM. But some writers have bigger egos than the players, and want to be able to brag to their grandchildren: "hey, I stopped so-and-so from being a unanimous selection."

[Defense Counts!]

associated press freelancer bill shannon of the sports press service did not vote for either gwynn or ripken because he figured them both to be slam dunks.


My pet goldfish has more sense than this guy.

[four tool]

I'm almost (that is 99.9%) completely willing to bet the farm that no one will ever get a unanimous selection. Too many who are definitely hall worthy have not gotten 100% and, since human nature "is what it is"....

[milladrive]

Cy Young got 76% for his election. Can you imagine that literally one-quarter of the voters didn't select him?

And what was Lou Gehrig's percentage??

[Appling]

I But some writers have bigger egos than the players, and want to be able to brag to their grandchildren: "hey, I stopped so-and-so from being a unanimous selection."
If you were this voter, would you brag to you grandchildren that "I stopped Hank Aaron from being a unanimous pick?

[John Shoemaker]

There's always one idiot who votes against the all time great.

Personally, I'd like to go up to the writers who voted against Willie Mays, slap them, and say "Don't ever do that again!".

That goes double for Babe Ruth. How can anyone vote against a player that hit over 700 home runs and won almost 100 games as a pitcher?

[dbacks01]

DiMaggio didn't even make it in his first year of eligibility. What was up with that?

[Appling]

DiMaggio didn't even make it in his first year of eligibility. What was up with that?
Same reason that Jimmie Foxx, Mel Ott and many others were not "first ballot" HOFers: Before the requirement for five years of retirement before getting on the ballot, many players appeared on the ballot when retired for just a year or two. Many voters thought there should be some delay but it was not yet a rule at the time.

Check the thread "Quicker than Six" in this HOF forum.

DiMaggio actually got his first Hall-of-Fame vote in 1945, when he was still very much an active player. He retired after the 1951 season and received 117 votes in 1953 and 175 votes in 1954 before he won election in 1955 -- but that was still just 4 years after his retirement. Under today's rules, he could not have appeared on the ballot until 1957. (Last active season plus SIX)

[NYMets523]

No one will be uanimous. But I think Seaver's record will be broken, probably by Maddux. I kinda hope not since I like it that the only Met has been the most qualified HOFer.

[vasprtsfn]

No one will ever be unanimous, as long as we have these activist writers who choose to make a statement-about Pete Rose not being on the ballot or not having all the info on steroids-by sending in signed blank ballots.

[catbox_9]

I think that Maddux could be.

1) Top pitchers tend to be higher in percentage of vote than hitters of the same caliber

2) No real personality issues to get in the way (ala Clemens)

3) Virtually flawless resume. Career and peak value. Gold gloves. Unless people just won't vote for a non-power pitcher he'll be hard to leave off.

I mean, I think that Seaver has the highest percentage ever, and even Seaver was up and down from season to season.

Although he won't be unanimous I agree Maddux has a better shot than Clemens. I'd even go as far as to say (call me crazy) he's a better pitcher than Clemens. Maddux isn't a power pitcher but his ERA is much better than Clemens. Say you're building a team, what's better: Strike out 100% of the batters you retire and have an ERA of 3.00 or strike out 0 batters your entire career but have an ERA of 2.99. The 2.99 isn't as exciting but it's better.

Maddux has an ERA that's more than 0.01 better than Clemens (I don't feel like looking it up) and he has 3000+ K's and less than 1000 BBs. Also, he's just 41 wins shy of 3rd all-time. If (tons of emphasis on if) he pitched as long as Nolan Ryan he'd have a very small shot at 400 wins (he needs 67 more).

[NYMets523]

Although he won't be unanimous I agree Maddux has a better shot than Clemens. I'd even go as far as to say (call me crazy) he's a better pitcher than Clemens. Maddux isn't a power pitcher but his ERA is much better than Clemens. Say you're building a team, what's better: Strike out 100% of the batters you retire and have an ERA of 3.00 or strike out 0 batters your entire career but have an ERA of 2.99. The 2.99 isn't as exciting but it's better.

If a pitcher struck out 100% of the batters he'd face, he'd have a 0 ERA. I get what you mean though.

Maddux has an ERA that's more than 0.01 better than Clemens (I don't feel like looking it up) and he has 3000+ K's and less than 1000 BBs. Also, he's just 41 wins shy of 3rd all-time. If (tons of emphasis on if) he pitched as long as Nolan Ryan he'd have a very small shot at 400 wins (he needs 67 more).

Maddux's career ERA is 0.03 lower than Clemens' (3.07 to 3.10). I doubt Maddux will get 400 wins, but he'd be the one if someone got 400.

[bob]

Will we ever see a 100% "yes" vote in the HOF? The HOF voters are a strange bunch. Some (well, all actually) of the greatest to have ever played the sport have had at least some voters think they are not even worthy of entering when clearly they belong in the inner circle of greatness. 9 voters didnt think Aaron did enough to get in, 20 said no to Williams, Hornsby had 51 wanting to keep him out!
It seems though that in the last 20 years things have been more consistant (of the 25 members with a 90%+ vote 13 have been elected in the last 20 years).
But what about unanimous? Thats asking alot.

Of active (or not yet elected) members which most would consider first ballot, who do you think could get 100%, or come closest to it?
I think Maddux may have an outside chance, he's got everything the HOF voters love (big peak, big counting numbers, long career, no weaknesses, no personality flaws or question marks about steroids). I honestly cant see a reason for anyone not to vote for Maddux first time round.
I think Active hitters may have a bigger problem since its so easy for people to disregard their performance and just say "but they played in the steroid era, cant be sure of anything."

[steve rogers]

I honestly cant see a reason for anyone not to vote for Maddux first time round.


I guarantee Maddux wont be unanimous. At least 10 of those morons will say he was bad in the post season so he doesn't deserve a first ballot election. The hall of fame voting has ben seriously flawed since the very beggining and I don't see it getting better.

Scott

[wardawg]

I think ARod will get a unanimous vote. The guy has loads of talent,and seems to do no wrong in the sportwriters eyes. The only problems could be his postseason play. However if he wins a championship, he get in hands down.

[bob]

I think ARod will get a unanimous vote. The guy has loads of talent,and seems to do no wrong in the sportwriters eyes. The only problems could be his postseason play. However if he wins a championship, he get in hands down.

I thought about Arod but i cant see him getting near unanimous. Too controversial. Im sure many voters will dislike his paycheck and high career SO total. He's on course to put up a career worthy of every vote, but i dont see him getting them all.

[Sockeye]

To answer the question quite simply, no I don't think any player will ever be unanimous. I'm pretty sure that some sports writers refuse to vote for any first year candidate.

Greg Maddux is the player that comes to mind first and foremost as standing the best chance. No serious argument can be made for him not being in the HOF. Yet at least a couple writers will vote no. That said I do think he stands a great chance at recording the highest % of any player so far.

Alex Rodriguez will lose votes for the steroid issue.

Derek Jeter could be an interesting one to watch being the media darling he is. If he can reach 3500+ hits he very well could garner 99%+

[Brad Harris]

Presumably, the Veterans Committee elected some men unanimously though I can't recall any such selection ever being made public. The BBWAA will certainly never anyone receive 100% of the vote. Ever.

[Paul Wendt]

Derek Jeter could be an interesting one to watch being the media darling he is. If he can reach 3500+ hits he very well could garner 99%+

A "media darling" may get more votes than he deserves but I doubt that the darling thing helps get all the votes or a record share? It only takes one of almost 500 voters to disdain the darling thing and act on that disdain, or it takes only five to knock darling below 99%.

[jalbright]

I've merged several threads which all discuss the idea of a unanimous HOF selection.

[bob]

But Clemens seems to have it all: great W-L numbers, multiple Cy Young awards, great strikeout totals. Is there ANYTHING in Roger's history for any voter to pick at? I think not! (He just needs to retire soon enough to avoid any kind of off-field scandal or congressional investigation.)
Quote made in Jan 07. Turns out you were right!
He goes from people talked about as a possible unanimous HOFer (or at least the highest percentage vote ever) to now maybe not getting in, all in just over a year!

[sturg1dj]

what is too bad is that players like Pujols or A-Rod won't be unanimous either since they played during the steroid era and at least one voter will take exception to that (which is not fair).

[Paul Wendt]

Source: Baseball Hall of Fame balloting, 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_Hall_of_Fame_balloting%2C_2007) (wikipedia)

Wikipedia coverage includes a long subsection called "Steroid debate" that also covers unanimous election in general. It is said there were eight blank ballots including two from voters who cited steroids as the reason. The article quotes one of the writers who cast a steroid protest and another one who did not vote for Cal Ripken or Tony Gwynn.
The day before the results were announced, Paul Ladewski of the Chicago-area Daily Southtown revealed that he had submitted a blank ballot (thus guaranteeing Gwynn and Ripken would not earn unanimous election), saying that he could not currently support any candidates who played primarily between 1993 and 2004, a period he termed the "Steroids Era."[7][8]
. . .
The following day, Bill Shannon of Sports Press Service stated that he had not voted for Ripken or Gwynn, solely because he felt there were ten other worthy candidates who needed his vote more: "I thought they were such obvious candidates they didn't need my vote. I wasn't thinking in terms of a 100 percent."[10]
So there may be two other groups of voters, beside protectors of the tradition, who stand in the way of unanimous election.
- vote for no one from the steroids era
- vote for the neediest of more than ten deserving candidates