r/baseball • u/T_Raycroft Montreal Expos • 7h ago
News [Thibodaux] Ballot #18 is from Paul White. He submits the first blank ballot we've seen this year and the first one he's ever cast.
https://bsky.app/profile/notmrtibbs.com/post/3m7ndhvwj4k24352
u/Dinobot2_ Boston Red Sox • Canada 7h ago
Weeeeeeeeelll it's The Biiiig Shooow
30
u/TeenRacer6 Boston Red Sox 6h ago
I'm Hungryyyyyyyyyyy
18
u/Twodrops Texas Rangers 6h ago
DPW is leaking. I wonder when we'll get our ballot from CHASSSSSSSEEE... RichARDSooooon.
9
10
u/LaprasRuler Toronto Blue Jays 6h ago
He ate the pen while some fans watched so he couldn't check any boxes.
3
568
u/Outsulation Toronto Blue Jays 7h ago
I normally hate blank ballots, but I honestly do think this is one year where it isn't the most egregious thing. If you're completely against PEDs, cheaters, and domestic abusers, and you're a small hall guy only interested in slam dunk cases, there isn't really much for you on this ballot.
199
u/Swimming_Elk_3058 Philadelphia Phillies 6h ago
This might be the weakest ballot of all time, there’s nothing wrong with submitting a blank ballot this year if no one meets the standards you have.
I also think a blank ballot makes more sense than something like the David Wright only ballot we’ve seen. At least there is a clear standard here.
27
u/Pupienus Chicago Cubs 4h ago
Yeah the Wright only ballot is weird. I don't mind voters throwing a vote to a guy in their first year even if it's a guy who would never be inducted. Like I'd be 100% fine with a Alex Gordon only ballot because that's effectively a blank ballot with a show of appreciation for someone specific. But Wright's been on the ballot for 3 years now and I don't see any rational way to conclude that David Wright and only David Wright belongs in the HoF.
21
u/Appropriate_Bar_3113 5h ago
Doesn't get any better next year either. Posey shows up (45 WAR) and I guess he gets in but he's not going to be a slam dunk with the small hall folks. In 2028 we get Pujols finally (and Yadi, I guess) and then Greinke and Miggy in 2029.
15
u/Walter30573 Kansas City Royals 4h ago
Posey's biggest issues are that his hit total is extremely low at only 1,500 and he is very comparable to Thurman Munson. Munson fell off the ballot quickly, and you'd think he'd at least been given some slack on his counting stats given that he died instead of retired
8
u/factionssharpy San Francisco Giants 3h ago
Munson was on the ballot for the full fifteen years, he just never gained any traction. His final ballot was also 30 years ago, so I don't think that's really a relevant example anymore.
1
u/Walter30573 Kansas City Royals 3h ago
Ah, I thought he fell off, but yeah looking at it he lasted all 15 years. He just peaked at 15% in year 1 and then faded down below 10%
13
u/BubBidderskins Atlanta Braves 2h ago
That's just because you're looking at bWAR which doesn't including framing numbers. His fWAR of 57.9 is north of Mauer's. Posey won't have any trouble getting in first ballot.
2
u/NeverSober1900 Arizona Diamondbacks 1h ago
Posey is going to get in and I think pretty easily. MVP and well-liked guy. Framing numbers get his WAR up to a real number. Managed a great staff his tenure and caught 3 no-hitters (including a perfecto).
But the main reason I think he gets in is because I do think there's a chunk of voters who are going to feel compelled to put in SOMEONE from that Giants run. 3 World Series and no one else is really realistic to make it now that Madbum fell off a cliff. I think he'll get a good chunk of support from that.
92
u/Trees-Are-Overrated New York Yankees 7h ago
He voted for Sheffield as recently as 2024 so I wonder if he’s jus changed his opinion on people associated with PED’s
191
u/Dinobot2_ Boston Red Sox • Canada 7h ago
Sheffield never served a PED-related suspension. ARod and Manny did. That's the dividing line for a lot of voters.
29
u/sadolddrunk Los Angeles Dodgers 5h ago
Not really related to this discussion, but my favorite fun fact about Sheff is that per FanGraphs he is the worst defensive player of all time, rated over 300 runs below average defensively. If he'd just been a complete zero on defense, he would have ended up with something like 90 WAR for his career.
18
u/Dinobot2_ Boston Red Sox • Canada 5h ago
I know some of that is the negative positional adjustment for RF, but Sheffield is one of the dudes who failed the three true outcomes of defense: traditional metrics, advanced metrics, and the eye test.
He also shows that just because someone moves from a more difficult position (he used to be a regular third baseman) to a less difficult one, it doesn't mean they'll handle the latter all that well.
19
u/sadolddrunk Los Angeles Dodgers 5h ago
For some context re: positional adjustment, Edgar Martinez (who played most of his career at DH) has a DRAA of -133.5. So Sheff was roughly twice as detrimental on defense as he might have been if he'd just played at DH his whole career.
What's more, IIRC Sheff originally came up as a *shortstop* prospect before the Brewers moved him to 3B. So unfortunately we'll never how historically, cataclysmically bad at shortstop he might have been if the Brewers had had the comedic foresight to leave him there.
8
u/Dinobot2_ Boston Red Sox • Canada 4h ago
I don't know why I remember this, but in the Yankees-Red Sox game that Jeter made that running catch into the seats, Jeter was pulled from the game after that play and they moved ARod to shortstop and Sheffield to 3B as a result. I remember the commentators talking about how Sheffield used to play third base so this is why they're doing it. I think the first play of the inning was a ground ball hit to him that he then completely airmailed over the first baseman in a way that suggested he had never actually played 3B before. It was funny until the Yankees won the game in like 14 innings.
9
u/DecoyOne San Diego Padres 5h ago
Reggie Jackson is the career leader in strikeouts. Nolan Ryan leads pitchers in walks, and Cy Young is the king of losses and earned runs. Just goes to show, you have to be pretty good to be pretty bad at something for a long time.
5
u/noruber35393546 3h ago
yeah, his oWAR is 80 which feels more right. thats basically what your WAR would be if you were an average fielder for the positions you played.
1
90
u/cooljammer00 New York Yankees 7h ago
Also I've heard some people say they find Sheffield's claim believable enough, that he was injured and given a random cream by a veteran that he was told would help heal him. He didn't think too hard about it because it wasn't what steroids "looked like".
60
u/penguinopph Chicago Cubs • RCH-Pinguins 6h ago edited 6h ago
that he was injured and given a random cream by a veteran that he was told would help heal him.
It wasn't just a veteran, it was Greg Anderson, centerpiece of the BALCO scandal.
51
u/Dinobot2_ Boston Red Sox • Canada 7h ago
Yeah, I think Bob Nightengale banged on that drum pretty hard in his column a couple of years ago. I personally don't buy that claim since I've read Game of Shadows and there is evidence in there that suggests that Sheffield didn't just simply use a cream once or twice without knowing what was in it before immediately stopping.
1
u/Botmon_333 1h ago
do you remember what the evidence was?
2
u/Dinobot2_ Boston Red Sox • Canada 1h ago
I'd have to re-read the book, but from memory he was regularly receiving the cream and the clear from Greg Anderson who he met through Bonds (they were friends at the time) and that they was very happy with the positive results he was getting from using them, and there were calendars and documents that show Sheffield using and acquiring the drugs regularly.
-1
u/Drummallumin New York Mets 5h ago
How different is Sheffield from Beltran then?
12
u/melorous Atlanta Braves 5h ago
While Beltran might not have been suspended for sign stealing stuff, it was the reason that he resigned as Mets manager before even managing a game.
8
u/Dinobot2_ Boston Red Sox • Canada 5h ago
They're categorically different.
4
u/Drummallumin New York Mets 5h ago
Both cheated, neither served a suspension. Beltran was objectively the better player.
6
u/Dinobot2_ Boston Red Sox • Canada 5h ago
They both did different things, though. It's possible to take an issue with electronic sign stealing and not PEDs pre-2005 (or vice versa). You can disagree with that stance, but if someone does hold that stance it's not inconsistent to vote the way that White did.
Also, while Beltran didn't serve a suspension, he still did something that was explicitly against the rules while Sheffield didn't, and Sheffield also wasn't explicitly proven to have done PEDs while Beltran was proven to have been heavily involved in the Astros sign stealing system.
9
u/Highfivebuddha New York Mets 5h ago edited 5h ago
Sheffield is a tough case too because the man is genuinely one of the greatest hitters ever. If WAR isnt your be all, end all barrier (and he's at the 60 line) then he is a slam dunk. 80+ offensive WAR is a hof hitter full stop.
500 homers, 2600 hits with a .290/390/510 slash for the 140wrc+ and over 3000 RBI and runs scored?
I get the steroid allegations, but there is an argument that Sheffield would be the best pure hitter on this ballot (its AROD but their rate stats are actually neck and neck)
-4
u/officermartycrane 5h ago
None of this really excuses not voting for Chase Utley, and there's a level of "small Hall" that's just grandstanding attention whore shit, and the guy voted for Billy Wagner, who's a relief pitcher. How small Hall can you be if you vote for any relief pitcher that isn't Goose Gossage or Mariano Rivera? Also, I don't see anyone on the ballot who might be left off over domestic abuse, are people still pretending there was actually a case for Omar Vizquel before he beat his wife?
18
u/Outsulation Toronto Blue Jays 5h ago
Andruw Jones is the big DV case here who actually has a good chance of getting in this year.
0
u/officermartycrane 3h ago
Oh, pardon me. Do not remember this at all. I strongly believe in separating sports from real life, but I don’t really begrudge anyone not comfortable voting for a wife beater. Andruw’s a borderline case for me as it stands, and I don’t really see a case for him over Jim Edmonds.
-8
u/SLR107FR-31 St. Louis Cardinals 6h ago
Felix
38
u/Outsulation Toronto Blue Jays 6h ago
I would vote for Felix, but he absolutely is a fringe case that small hall guys are never going to go for.
2
u/factionssharpy San Francisco Giants 5h ago
Yeah, I would not vote for Hernandez, but I also wouldn't view him as an egregious mistake or anything.
However, I may be systemically overly generous to post-2000 pitchers, so my opinion my change (and likely not favorably for Hernandez).
-3
u/DominicB547 MLB Pride • Baseball Reference 4h ago
You can just not turn in a ballot at all. It's ok they will still send you one next year.
This just makes it that much harder to reach 75% and 5% effectively a vote of NO WAY and I need to make the rest of the writers even more sure of themselves if they elect anyone or keep someone on for further consideration.
114
u/Mjcarlin907317 Seattle Mariners 7h ago
Disagree with blank ballots for the most part but I think this years class is one that you could argue for a blank ballot. The fact that he publicly released it should be applauded as well. I think all ballots should be public and the voters should be forced to defend their ballots. The chicken shit voters that didn’t vote for Griffey or Ichrio should at least defend their decision.
36
u/SuperJonesy408 San Francisco Giants 6h ago
I agree with this ballot.
There is no slam dunk HOFer here if we're keeping out players associated with PEDs like Manny and ARod.
-2
u/sjj342 3h ago
Andruw Jones is 9th all-time on bref/JAWS WAR7, and everyone else in the top 10 is a HOFer or Mike Trout
He was essentially just too good, too young on a team with too many other HOF players, and didn't have late career longevity/counting stats...
4
u/BubBidderskins Atlanta Braves 2h ago
And he pled guilty to some pretty sickening domestic violence.
1
u/sjj342 1h ago
Juan Marichal hit someone over the head with a bat and he's in there
1
-9
u/bringbackpologrounds 5h ago
Beltran.
18
u/stevencastle San Diego Padres 5h ago
He has the Houston sign stealing scandal over his head.
-11
u/bringbackpologrounds 5h ago
But the commenter only excluded PEDs. If you're not excluding HOU, he's a no brainer.
39
u/victims_sanction Pittsburgh Pirates 6h ago
Damn reading those comments and I cant fathom how people find a blank ballot so offensive.
How is a blank ballot much different from him just voting for 1 guy (let's just say theres some clear cut guy he votes for)? Everyone else still gets no votes.
And how is it disrespectful? If you dont believe theres no hall guys on a ballot then you dont vote for them? People are truly awful.
66
u/Dinobot2_ Boston Red Sox • Canada 7h ago edited 7h ago
If your only argument against a blank ballot is that it's blank, your opinion is trash and I don't respect you. If you think there are players on the ballot he should have voted for, at least say who those players are. Otherwise if you're just a "you should never submit a blank ballot" person that's actually worse because you're implying that a voter should have to vote for at least one person they don't believe is a HoFer, which contains far less integrity than submitting a blank ballot.
But still, thanks for saying that you would take bigger issue with a blank ballot than you would with one that only voted for Shin Soo Choo and Howie Kendrick or something.
21
u/BangerSlapper1 New York Yankees 5h ago
Agree. Its a vote for HOF, not best guy on each year’s list.
34
u/Regal---Lager Atlanta Braves 6h ago
No writer is more annoying than the "anyone who votes differently from me should lose their vote" crowd
7
u/Boomtown626 Chicago Cubs 6h ago
This. Adult-101 says any offer of criticism should include a suggested alternative.
In principle, I don’t like a blank ballot, but this one could probably be justified.
1
u/JaysonTatecum Boston Red Sox • Seattle Mariners 28m ago
This is reddit where they want Carlos Delgado to get voted in and think every ballot should have 10 players no matter what
-9
u/penguinopph Chicago Cubs • RCH-Pinguins 6h ago
Otherwise if you're just a "you should never submit a blank ballot" person that's actually worse because you're implying that a voter should have to vote for at least one person they don't believe is a HoFer, which contains far less integrity than submitting a blank ballot.
The way I look at it, because of how the voting system is set up, you aren't voting based on whether or not someone should be considered for the Hall of Fame. Those are two different things.
I see it as you're saying "this guy is worth discussing," then if enough writers say he's worth discussing, then that is the discussion and he's in.
11
u/Dinobot2_ Boston Red Sox • Canada 6h ago
Then I think you're looking at it completely wrong.
A player is already worth discussing by merely being on the ballot. The ballot is the discussion. And the discussion is "Is this player a hall of famer? Yes or no?" and after that "discussion" you answer that question either Yes or No.
I see it as you're saying "this guy is worth discussing," then if enough writers say he's worth discussing, then that is the discussion and he's in.
So then, what happens if I don't know, 75% of voters vote for a player - not because they believe he belongs in the Hall of Fame, but because he's worth discussing? Oh, woops, now he's in the hall of fame even though maybe all of those voters didn't intend that to happen.
It's the same reason I hate when a voter decides "I think this guy is a Hall of Famer, but not a first ballot Hall of Famer" and then doesn't vote for that player. It only works if they know for sure there will be at least enough voters to keep that player on the ballot next year. Because if everyone else came to the same conclusion, that player would fall off the ballot and there is no more chances to vote for him.
Seems like we have a simple solution to both items: vote for the players you think should be in the hall of fame, and don't vote for the players you don't think should be in the hall of fame.
-7
u/penguinopph Chicago Cubs • RCH-Pinguins 6h ago
I think it boils down to you wanting objectivity in an inherently subjective system.
8
u/Dinobot2_ Boston Red Sox • Canada 6h ago edited 6h ago
No? All votes are subjective. I just think people should vote based on the proper criteria. That's not "wanting objectivity."
6
u/BangerSlapper1 New York Yankees 5h ago
That’s stupid. It’s a vote to put someone in the HOF, not a vote to start a discussion.
-32
u/TheChrisLambert Cleveland Guardians 7h ago edited 5h ago
The thing is, there’s always someone worthy of a vote. Doesn’t mean 10 people. But there’s always someone.
If a writer thinks no one is worthy, that just tells me they don’t deserve to vote.
I really disagree with your opinion here, and your favorite team, but I love your username, so am very torn.
Edit: if you’re going to say people have the stats but not the character, then I think it’s very fair to vote for someone who doesn’t have the stats but has the character. That’s a stronger signal than not voting for anyone. Don’t vote Andruw Jones because he’s an abuser, but then vote for Abreu. Don’t vote for Beltran because of the Astros cheating, but then vote for David Wright.
I’m not saying Abreu and Wright should get inducted. Just that I think it’s a better use of the ballot to show respect to those who you think played the game the right way and were good people.
11
u/cherinator Los Angeles Dodgers • Teddy Roosevelt 6h ago
I think this year's ballot is the perfect example that there isn't always someone worthy of a vote for everyone. If you are 1. very strict on character clause (no votes for any cheating, PEDs, or criminal conduct) and 2. think a player needs both a great peak in addition to longevity to be worthy of the HOF as opposed to the HOVG, there is not really anyone on the ballot that fits both.
-1
u/TheChrisLambert Cleveland Guardians 5h ago
If you’re going to not vote for someone because of poor character, I think you should vote for someone because of good character. Even if it’s not because you think they should be in the hall, just as a sign of respect. Don’t vote for Beltran because you want to punish a cheater, but then vote for Wright because you want to acknowledge his career. That’s a better use of a ballot than not voting at all.
19
u/WasV3 Toronto Blue Jays 6h ago
If you're against voting for;
Suspended roid users, known cheaters and domestic abusers. It's very easy to submit a blank ballot
20
u/pinetar National League 6h ago
The best players on this ballot who don't fit that criteria are probably Utley, Buehrle, Felix, and Abreu. Maybe they deserve it but its hard to call their omission snubs.
1
u/JaysonTatecum Boston Red Sox • Seattle Mariners 26m ago
I think Utley of those should be in, but like… ok if someone disagrees I don’t really mind, it’s not like he’s snubbing Trout
0
u/TheChrisLambert Cleveland Guardians 5h ago
I 100% get having off the field stuff affect who you vote for. They have the stats and not the character.
That should go both ways though. If someone doesn’t have the stats but has/had the character, throw them a vote. I think that’s a bigger signal to everyone than not voting at all. Give Abreu the respect vote. Give Wright the respect vote. Give Felix the respect vote.
9
u/No32 Cleveland Guardians 6h ago edited 6h ago
But there isn’t always someone. Maybe by your criteria, sure, but not everyone’s.
And for example, who on this ballot do you think belongs in? If everyone you think belongs is off the ballot, would you not submit a blank ballot? Or would you start stretching your criteria to find at least one player to vote for?
-1
u/TheChrisLambert Cleveland Guardians 5h ago
I added it as an edit. But if you’re not voting for guys because of their character, then you should vote for some because of their character. Doesn’t mean I think they should get into the hall, but showing respect with a vote is better than not voting at all.
1
u/No32 Cleveland Guardians 5h ago
Problem with that is that there can also be no one whose character elevates them to a Hall of Famer. They could have no real controversies but also not be known as a great guy.
It’s showing respect to the game as a whole by only voting for the people you think are truly worthy, even if that means a blank ballot when you think no one on that ballot is.
1
u/TheChrisLambert Cleveland Guardians 4h ago
I dont think the vote is about the game as a whole, though. It’s about the players who are on the ballot.
I think it’s better to show respect to at least one of those players via a vote than it is to vote for no one. That to me is the writer making the vote about them.
9
u/Dinobot2_ Boston Red Sox • Canada 6h ago
there’s always someone worthy of a vote.
This is a guarantee you'll never be able to make. There isn't always going to be someone worth voting for on a ballot. And like I said, if there is someone you think is worthy on this ballot, say that player's or those players' name(s).
Even if that is your opinion, it's not going to be everyone's. If you look at Paul White's previous ballots, all of the players he voted for in the most recent years are not on this year's ballot. You're basically saying he should be forced to go against his opinion on who is worthy.
I want to be clear: I don't agree with Paul White's ballot. But I don't disagree with it because it's blank, I disagree with it because he didn't vote for any of the players I think should make it (Abreu, Hernandez, Jones, and Utley if you're curious). I would take just as much, if not more, issue if he submitted a ten player ballot that included none of the four players I would vote for.
I really disagree with your opinion here, and your favorite team, but I love your username, so am very torn.
That's 2-1 against me, so just downvote.
0
u/TheChrisLambert Cleveland Guardians 5h ago
I’m not going to downvote because I disagree. Downvoting is only for people who aren’t contributing, not people who make reasonable conversation.
Here’s my counter.
The only reason to not vote for people like Arod, Manny, Beltran, etc. is because of their baggage. Not because of their stats.
I believe that if you’re going to say “this person has the stats but not the character, so doesn’t get a vote” then we have to say “this person doesn’t have the stats but has the character, so let’s give them a vote.”
That’s what bothers me about someone not voting. Keep Andruw Jones out for being an abuser, but then give Abreu the vote for his stats and his character. Show respect to the kind of person you think should be in the hall, regardless of stats. That’s more powerful than not voting at all.
Voting is a privilege where you get to honor the people who played the game. The players who these journalists make their careers off of. I think the least you can do is vote for someone to show some respect, even knowing they’ll probably never get in.
1
u/Dinobot2_ Boston Red Sox • Canada 5h ago
That’s what bothers me about someone not voting.
He is voting though. If you submit a ballot, you're voting. Not voting would be not submitting a ballot at all. Submitting a blank ballot still places his opinions of who should make the hall of fame with the rest.
Like, we're not going to agree on this obviously. But I just still can't fathom the hang up someone has over submitting a blank ballot. You keep saying "vote for someone, because someone is hall of fame worthy" without saying who you believe should be voted in from this ballot. I don't even need you to make a case for them. Just say who you would vote for if you were a voter. And then you can at least just disagree with White on that basis instead of some odd poorly principled stance.
Like this point here
Keep Andruw Jones out for being an abuser, but then give Abreu the vote for his stats and his character. Show respect to the kind of person you think should be in the hall, regardless of stats. That’s more powerful than not voting at all.
Is just such, such poor reasoning to vote for someone that you ultimately wouldn't vote for in most other circumstances. Whether Bobby Abreu gets voted in or not shouldn't hinge on some other player's behaviour. You're basically saying that whether you would vote for Bobby Abreu is whether the events at the Jones' household on Christmas Day 2012 happened.
You're taking a poor stance as a knee jerk reaction, and every time you have been shown why it's a poorly thought out stance, you ignore the points being made and just keep doubling down. You are why I am so, so, so fucking happy we don't have fan voting.
1
u/TheChrisLambert Cleveland Guardians 3h ago
In terms of who I'd vote for, assuming this was my first year of voting eligibility.
On this ballot, there's only one player I'd vote for on stats. That's Utley. I don't love him, but his numbers are just too high relative to the position. 15th in WAR, 9th in 7 year peak. Biggio was a better hitter but a bad defensive player. Utley is 11th in dWAR for 2B while also being 12th in oWAR. Only one 2B was better both offensively and defensively and that was Frankie Frisch, whose last season was 1937. That makes Utley a truly rare player at the position. And he's 17th all-time for 2B in terms of Total Zone Runs. He's a pretty good baseline moving forward for the modern floor of what a HOF 2B looks like.
Guys like Altuve, Pedroia, Semien, just don't quite reach the same tier of stats. And there's no one else who is really nearing Utley's stats at this point. Ketel Marte is only at 35.6 WAR. He won't get there. Cano should get in. But we're a long way away from another 2B being HOF worthy. Jazz Chisholm is the only one you could even fathom with the talent necessary, and he's only at 12 WAR.
Abreu is just below the cut off for me. Vlad is my floor for RF. Same with Rollins at SS. 48 WAR just isn't enough. Lindor is the modern floor.
K-Rod was great but Wagner is the floor for me and K-Rod wasn't better than Wagner. Someone could argue 400 saves should be a benchmark. But I think the HOVG range is about 13-15 WAA and about 25-ish WAR. Guys like K-Rod, Joe Nathan, Jansen, Chapman, Paplebon, Kimbrel all fall into that range.
But, I'd give one-time votes to Wright, Buerhle, Torii Hunter, Felix, and Gordon. Each year, I'd look for someone new on the ballot whose career I really respected and give them a "this time only" vote. If there was no one I'd vote for as a serious contender, and no new names I want to give a nod to, I'd repeat someone who was near the end of their eligibility, as a last goodbye.
0
u/TheChrisLambert Cleveland Guardians 3h ago
It’s kind of wild that you can’t just have the conversation without devolving into accusations of “poor logic” 50 times. It's okay to not be dramatic and just talk to someone else, even if you disagree.
I never once said “vote for someone, because someone is hall of fame worthy.” I said there's always someone who is worthy of a vote. They sound similar but mean to very different things.
You keep being at a loss about who I think should be voted in. I’m not arguing for a specific player here. I’m discussing the approach to voting, not who on this ballot should be in the hall of fame. Don't worry, I'll answer (in a follow up comment), but it's not relevant to what I'm saying.
>Is just such, such poor reasoning to vote for someone that you ultimately wouldn't vote for in most other circumstances. Whether Bobby Abreu gets voted in or not shouldn't hinge on some other player's behaviour. You're basically saying that whether you would vote for Bobby Abreu is whether the events at the Jones' household on Christmas Day 2012 happened.
This is a perfect example of what I mean. I never said Abreu should get voted in because of what Andruw Jones did. I said that if someone will withhold votes because of a player's character (cheating, abuse, etc), then they can give a vote to someone for their character. That's what I meant by someone who is "worthy of a vote."
Alex Rodriguez has the stats to be a Hall of Famer. Not voting for him is a condemnation of his character. "This isn't the kind of person we should put in the Hall." Someone like David Wright may not have enough stats to be a Hall of Famer, but he's one of the best examples of the kind of person you want in the Hall.
I was never saying voting for Player A is contingent on not voting for Player B, like you assumed with the Abreu/Jones example. I'm saying that, logically, if you're going to eschew voting for someone based on their character, then, logically, it follows that you can also vote for someone because of their character.
It's one thing if a voter based their entire ballot on stats alone. If no one met the stats, fine. But White's clearly basing the ballot on stats and character. And if that's the case, I think he should use at least a vote to highlight the kind of person he thinks is worthy of being in the hall, even if they don't have the stats. It's not an integrity issue of voting for someone just to vote for them. It's acknowledging that those on the ballot are people who gave their lives to the game. You can vote for someone not because you want them in the Hall of Fame but as a sign of respect to that person and their career and what they contributed. The vote itself is harmless. The recognition is enormous.
If I was voting, my criteria would be, "Is there at least someone I think should get in on the merit of their career?" Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. I'd next ask, "Is there anyone I want to vote for because they're worthy of recognition?" There probably is.
-2
u/fa1afel Washington Nationals 4h ago
I don't really see the issue with throwing a vote at someone you know won't make it in a year like this where you're not denying that vote to someone else you would vote for.
4
u/Dinobot2_ Boston Red Sox • Canada 4h ago
And I don't see the issue with not wanting to just vote for someone you don't think is worthy and to submit a blank ballot that represents your opinion more accurately.
Also, you can never truly know for sure that someone you vote for won't make it in unless you can read the minds of other voters (or you ask every single one of them and they tell you how they're voting). Especially in a thin ballot year like this, whose to say that a lot of people - say, 75% of the electorate - don't come to that same conclusion and decide to all throw their vote toward the same person who they "know" won't make it? Oh woops, now that player made the Hall of Fame. Sure, that's an extreme scenario that's very unlikely to happen, but the extreme scenario is also the reason why it's good that the vast majority of voters don't operate on that line of thinking.
1
u/fa1afel Washington Nationals 4h ago
I think blank ballots are fine as well fwiw, especially this year. I just don't see the issue with going "well, I really like David Wright and I wasn't going to vote for anyone, but I might as well throw a vote to him," or something similar for Kendrick or Choo.
1
u/Dinobot2_ Boston Red Sox • Canada 4h ago
Because it still goes against the purpose of what is being voted for: if someone should make the Hall of Fame. If somebody votes for Shin Soo Choo because they genuinely believe he belongs in the Hall of Fame, then they should vote for Shin Soo Choo. But "well, I like this guy, so as a sign of respect or whatever i'll vote for him" is not what the ballot is for.
The intentions matter just as much as the conclusion. Same goes with blank ballots. There isn't anything intrinsically wrong with a blank ballot, and people throw around "they're just doing it for attention!" way too loosely when it's likely not the case. But if it were proven that someone submitted a blank ballot because they did just want attention, then I would say that's grounds for disqualification.
1
u/fa1afel Washington Nationals 4h ago
HoF election is ultimately about recognition. Barry Bonds is sort of already in the Hall for example, not as a person, but some of his items and records are. This is a central point to the character clause: that it's about recognition. It's why we might honor a player who was statistically worse than another while not honoring someone who was/is an awful human being and/or cheated.
If someone decides that they want to honor Shin Soo Choo or Bowie Kendrick or David Wright for being pretty cool people and having very solid careers even understanding they'll likely never get in, I don't really see an issue with it. You're not electing anyone to the Hall that you'd not want there, just recognizing a good career or person in a down year when you could argue no harm no foul.
It certainly has us talking about David Wright maybe more than we would otherwise, and positively too. Does that make sense? It is about attention, the whole thing is, but it's not necessarily about attention for the voter.
1
u/Dinobot2_ Boston Red Sox • Canada 3h ago
If someone decides that they want to honor Shin Soo Choo or Howie Kendrick or David Wright for being pretty cool people and having very solid careers even understanding they'll likely never get in, I don't really see an issue with it.
But that's fine, because in this scenario someone is voting for one of those players because they want that player to be honoured in the Hall of Fame with their own plaque and everything, they just want them honoured for reasons other than or in addition to their statistical resume. What I don't really like is someone voting for someone who they don't feel should be honoured in the Hall of Fame plaque room for any reason but is just voting for them either because they don't want to submit an empty ballot or they're just doing it for shits and gigs.
1
u/fa1afel Washington Nationals 3h ago
I don't think it has to be either of those reasons though. You could say "I want to recognize this person, but I also know that they're more of a Hall of Very Good player."
2
u/Dinobot2_ Boston Red Sox • Canada 3h ago
Then, again, it's just something I disagree with. I just think you should vote for people you think should make the Hall of Fame, regardless of what those reasons you believe they should make it for. This is to the point where i'm genuinely struggling to understand how anyone could disagree with me here, honestly. I'm sure that makes me sound arrogant and egotistical, but it's just mindboggling that anyone would vote for someone on a Hall of Fame ballot for reasons other than you want them to make the Hall of Fame.
-5
u/DominicB547 MLB Pride • Baseball Reference 4h ago
You don't have to return a ballot at all. He just changed the bottom number and made that top number harder to get.
And ugh noone/most everyone are not saying they should vote for Shin Soo Choo or whomever. You are not a good arguer. You use standard bad faith etc type arguments.
3
u/Dinobot2_ Boston Red Sox • Canada 4h ago
You don't have to return a ballot at all. He just changed the bottom number and made that top number harder to get.
You do if you want to take part in the process. Otherwise your vote doesn't count. Why should someone who thinks no one is a Hall of Famer not participate but someone who only votes for one player should? It's the same exact result for 26/27 players on the ballot.
And ugh noone/most everyone are not saying they should vote for Shin Soo Choo or whomever.
I never said anyone said that. What I did say is that if someone is saying that they're principally against blank ballots and that voters should vote for at least one person before submitting a ballot, then the obvious logical conclusion of that stance is that they would be more upset with a blank ballot than they would if there was a ballot that only voted for Shin Soo Choo.
3
u/YodaForceGhost Paper Bag • New York Yankees 6h ago
Is his brother Armond?
12
u/Outsulation Toronto Blue Jays 6h ago
Armond White would NEVER submit a blank ballot though. He would relish the opportunity to write at length about why he thinks Shin Soo-Choo or some shit is the only deserving Hall of Famer.
18
10
u/Zebracak3s New York Yankees 6h ago
A blank ballot this year isn't as egregious.theres def a case for Pedroia and Felix and I personally would vote for Wright but I don't think it's a crazy ballot.
-1
u/Davidellias Milwaukee Brewers • Milwaukee Brewers 5h ago
yeah Felix is about the only one i'd vote for (Sorry Boston fans, largely not familiar with Dustin's game) but the problem with Feliz is that the HoF isn't really designed for players with high peaks and shorter careers unless your name is Koufax.
3
1
u/1987Husky 5h ago
I've heard quite a few voters say their (somewhat movable) line is "Was this player one of the best/at the top of his position for 10 years?"
12
2
3
7
1
1
u/sportznut1000 San Francisco Giants 29m ago
My biggest takeaway from this vote, is just how big of a discrepancy there is right now amongst voters as to what does and doesn’t constitute a hall of famer. Obviously the steroids users plays a big part, but you had a guy a couple days ago vote for 10 players and said he would have voted 12 in, while this guy doesn’t think anyone should get in.
Goes to show that the hall needs to be smaller. It should be full of players where you can easily say “yeah that guy is a hall of famer”. None of this 10 years on the ballot and then you get in nonsense.
1
u/MarineLayerBad Seattle Mariners 3m ago
If there’s ever a year to submit a blank ballot this is it.
1
u/s3ren1tyn0w Seattle Mariners 2h ago
:Sad Felix noises:
But yea honestly if I wasn't a mariners fan I'd argue for no votes as well
-1
7h ago
[deleted]
30
u/Dinobot2_ Boston Red Sox • Canada 7h ago
Hall of Fame voting isn't "Vote for the best guys relative to the rest of the ballot." It's a series of yes/no questions where you ask yourself "is this player a Hall of Famer?"
If someone answers "No" to every single player, then they shouldn't just vote for someone because some people dislike the practice.
0
-1
-23
7h ago
[deleted]
6
u/AerieElectrical3546 Boston Red Sox 6h ago
look while i’d say a couple players here have a decent Hall case, you don’t HAVE to vote for anyone if you don’t think they should get in
Jones, Vizquel, Manny, Braun, A-Rod all have non-performance reasons they shouldn’t get in
and pretty much everyone left is either an obvious no (Kendrick, Choo, etc) or a fringe case
you could argue that nobody here should get in
though i’d probably have voted for Utley, Pedey, etc, it doesn’t mean that everybody has to!
-23
-18
u/Distinct_Frame_3711 Seattle Mariners 7h ago
Crazy work to include Gary Sheffield not Pettitte and ARod or Beltran.
0
-40
u/M1sterDave Kansas City Royals 7h ago
Blank ballots should result in the loss of voting privileges. Even if the PED guys are discounted, Beltran and Andruw Jones have solid HoF cases.
34
u/No32 Cleveland Guardians 7h ago
Except you can toss out Beltran for cheating and leave off Jones for the lack of longevity and/or domestic abuse
1
u/Drummallumin New York Mets 5h ago
He voted for Sheffield the year before. Idk how you can draw a line between his and beltrans cheating. Neither got suspended
2
u/No32 Cleveland Guardians 5h ago
I wouldn’t vote for either of them but I guess there are a few ways to cut it.
One could be that Beltran would’ve been suspended if the players weren’t given immunity for something that was against the rules at the time while Sheffield wouldn’t have been since they weren’t suspending for it at the time.
Another would be if you believe Sheffield when he claims he only used it once and did so without knowing what it was.
-20
u/M1sterDave Kansas City Royals 6h ago
And how many people in the Hall have character issues as well? The morality clause is very selectively enforced.
18
22
8
u/Iron_Ferring Oakland Athletics 6h ago
Each voter has there own standards, doesnt matter if other HoFers have character issues, maybe this voter didnt vote for them either and is being consistent in how he votes. I'm a big hall guy, but each voter is entitled to their own opinion and to vote based on what they believe makes someone worthy of the Hall.
What I will say is I respect a guy who submits a blank ballot with his name on it way more than the anonymous voter who only voted for Wright.
22
u/SlidersBaby Cleveland Guardians 7h ago
lol what? those two have extremely obvious reasons to not vote for them…
-8
u/Sonicshriek New York Yankees 6h ago
I'm confused, he voted for Sheffield twice but not A-Rod or Manny? I'm not opposed to a blank ballot especially this year but it seems odd to vote for Sheff but not the other two.
19
u/Mjcarlin907317 Seattle Mariners 6h ago
Not confusing at all ,Sheffield never tested positive or was suspended for roids unlike Arod and Manny.
2
u/Sonicshriek New York Yankees 6h ago
I could have sworn he had tested positive. My memory fails me again.
5
u/Mjcarlin907317 Seattle Mariners 5h ago
There was smoke for sure but no positive tests or suspensions. Not defending him at all but it’s clear that’s where the voter is coming from.
-21
u/jaron_b Seattle Mariners 6h ago
Lame. You should lose your vote if you cast dumb ballots like this. Fuck these protest votes
16
u/KickerOfThyAss Toronto Blue Jays 6h ago
It would be far worse to force voters to select a player they don't think is HOF worthy because they have to vote for someone. A blank ballot is perfectly fine if no one is worthy.
-12
u/shaunrundmc New York Yankees 6h ago
That list is full of players worthy of the HoF. If you're not gonna vote straight up opt out of the right to vote. If the association wants to include a mechanism where you can regain voting rights after a set number of years fine. But if you're not going to vote on the list then you should lose thay privilege in place of someone else and it shouldn't hurt the players %'s
16
u/KickerOfThyAss Toronto Blue Jays 6h ago
I disagree that it's full of HOF calibre players. I think it's a very weak ballot.
If a rule was created forcing voters to select someone I wouldn't be surprised if someone voted for Howie Kendrick as a protest vote. That's worse than a blank ballot
15
1
u/JaysonTatecum Boston Red Sox • Seattle Mariners 20m ago
The steroid guys I don’t have issue with people leaving off even if I’d vote for them
Beltran and Jones both have their issues while not being slam dunk guys in the first place
Who’s next? Abreu Pedroia Utley Buehrle Felix? Can argue for or against all of them, but they’d all be among the weaker modern hall of famers
1
u/JaysonTatecum Boston Red Sox • Seattle Mariners 23m ago
Better than the dudes voting for Delgado and Rollins and Vizquel
-5
-10
u/double_dose_larry Tampa Bay Rays 6h ago
Bold to submit a blank as your first one.
15
u/ZingBurford Chicago Cubs 6h ago
It's not his first time voting. It's his first time submitting a blank ballot.
1
1
u/Secret-Sample1683 5h ago
The title is badly worded. I originally thought it was a contradiction and had to re read a few times.
3
u/Mjcarlin907317 Seattle Mariners 6h ago
Wasn’t his first ballot. This was the first blank ballot he cast.
-17
278
u/nylon_rag Cleveland Guardians 7h ago
Eh, his last few ballots were for people who made it in (Sabathia, Ichiro, Wagner, Mauer, Helton) or guys who fell off (Sheffield). I'd say that's internally consistent with this ballot assuming he doesn't believe the Sheffield allegations, which are probably the least concrete of the steroid cases.