HOF Ballot -- Who should stay on ballot with 5% of Vote

[Chris78]

I already mentioned in the other thread who I think may be elected this year -- Alomar, Larkin, Dawson, and Blyleven. But who should stay on the ballot? I will name the 26 candidates and divide it on who in my opinion who might stay and who will not stay. Among the Top 16 candidates, who is most likely not to get 5% of the vote this year and would be knocked off the ballot?

Here are the 2010 canididates for induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame:

1) Roberto Alomar
2) Harold Baines
3) Bert Blyleven
4) Andre Dawson
5) Andres Galarraga
6) Barry Larkin
7) Edgar Martinez
8) Don Mattingly
9) Fred McGriff
10) Mark McGwire
11) Jack Morris
12) Dale Murphy
13) Dave Parker
14) Tim Raines
15) Lee Smith
16) Alan Trammell

17) Kevin Appier
18) Ellis Burks
19) Pat Hentgen
20) Mike Jackson
21) Eric Karros
22) Ray Lankford
23) Shane Reynolds
24) David Segui
25) Robin Ventura
26) Todd Zeile

Of the names mentioned in the Top 16, I think Harold Baines is the most likely candidate from the returnees not to stay on. I think that of the new candidates in the Top 16 (Alomar, Galarraga, Larkin, Martinez, and McGriff), Galarraga is the only one that may not make it another ballot. Candidates 17-26 have no chance to get 5% in my opinion. What does everyone else think and remember you can only vote for 10 candidate if you were actually voting.

Chris

[Chris78]

Andres Galarraga did not make 5% and got 22 votes (4.1%). He is officially gone.

Disappointed that Blyleven (74.2%) and Alomar (73.7%) did not make it. Both should make it next year if they are that close.

Barry Larkin had 51.6% and Edgar Martinez had 36.2%. Larkin should make it in the next few years. Martinez might be the next Blyleven.

Any other thoughts out there?

Chris

[legaleagle92481]

Here is a radical idea: Everyone gets one year on the ballot no holdovers. Your either a hall of famer or your not additional years post ones playing career does not make him any more or less of a hall of famer. If one summer there is no induction and in another there are four or five so be it. Whats the point of having guys like Mattingly, Lee Smith, etc. be voted on for 15 years and never get close to being inducted and other guys like Dawson who everyone knows will get in at some point have to wait nine long years?

[earlywynnfan]

"Next year's ballot also will include newcomers Rafael Palmeiro, Juan Gonzalez, Larry Walker, Jeff Bagwell, John Franco and Kevin Brown."


Looking ahead, I think the stigma will follow Gonzalez and Raffy. I never considered Bagwell and Walker to be strong candidates. That means that it should be Blyleven's year, and surely Alomar will.

I agree with a "one-shot" deal; telling Dawson or Rice that they aren't HOF-worthy for many many years, then suddenly they are is pure crap. I've also never understood those who play the "first ballot" game. Why didn't Rickey get 100%? Or Seaver or Carlton or Schmidt? I think HOF voters should have to explain themselves to the public.

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com

[cjclong]

I would not be against the one year rule. I think because we have an election every year the sports writers feel that someone should be voted in every year. If you get a weak class they will vote in someone who would not make it if there better qualified candidates on the list just to vote someone in. Since we aren't changing anytime soon I think some of the players like McGuire and Palmeiro should get enough votes to stay on the list. I know a lot of people think those that have been accused of using steroids should be banned. But lets say the voters 10 years from now vote in ARod . Would it be fair to have banned a Palmeiro or McGuire because of steroids and then later vote in an Arod. And how do you deal with players many believe used steroids like Clemons or Bonds who would have had HOF careers if they had retired before the years they have been accused of using steroids?

[5kRunner]

Why didn't Rickey get 100%? Or Seaver or Carlton or Schmidt? I think HOF voters should have to explain themselves to the public.

I agree. Heck, Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Ted Williams, Willie Mays, and Hank Aaron didn't get 100%. I think Seaver has the highest percentage though. I could be wrong.

[ironmanfan]

I agree. Heck, Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Ted Williams, Willie Mays, and Hank Aaron didn't get 100%. I think Seaver has the highest percentage though. I could be wrong.

that's right

[metsbats]

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/hof/hofmem4.shtml


Found this on the baseball almanac site.

[mr.miracle]

I agree. Heck, Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Ted Williams, Willie Mays, and Hank Aaron didn't get 100%. I think Seaver has the highest percentage though. I could be wrong.

Ken, right or wrong, the fact that Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, Ted Williams, Walter Johnson, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, heck Joe DiMaggio was not even 1st ballot??? never made it unanimously, seems to indicate that nobody ever will. If those guys did not go in unanimously, I cannot see how anyone can suggest any number of current stars should be unanimous selections. I think that the model was laid out for this years ago and probably nobody will ever be unanimous.

[5kRunner]

Ken, right or wrong, the fact that Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, Ted Williams, Walter Johnson, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, heck Joe DiMaggio was not even 1st ballot??? never made it unanimously, seems to indicate that nobody ever will. If those guys did not go in unanimously, I cannot see how anyone can suggest any number of current stars should be unanimous selections. I think that the model was laid out for this years ago and probably nobody will ever be unanimous.

There was talk in 2007 that Ripken would be the first unanimous selection. Didn't happen and I agree with you. It never will.

But seriously, anyone who didn't vote for Ruth, Wagner, Williams, etc. should have his voting privileges taken away.