Final Analysis of 2015 BBWAA Hall-of-Fame Election Results and a First Look at the 2016 BBWAA Hall-of-Fame Election
Now that the 2015 Hall-of-Fame election is over - with the excellent result that four well-deserving candidates were elected to the Hall of Fame - I wanted to take one final look at the 2015 election results and what they suggest in terms of next year's election. As with my earlier analyses of Hall-of-Fame voting, the results depend heavily upon Ryan Thibs' wonderful spreadsheet which compiled election results by voter. For the 2014 election, Thibs was able to compile vote totals for 300 of the 571 voters (52.5%) (although my analysis of these results was done on an earlier version based on only 289 known votes). For the 2015 election, Thibs is still gathering data, but as I type this sentence, he has results for 308 of the 549 votes cast (an astounding 56.1%).
My analysis here is divided into three parts. The first part looks at voters who filled their ballots (i.e., voted for 10 players) and estimates differences in the voting patterns of what I'll call "full-ballot voters" versus "non-full-ballot voters". The second part of this article is an update of my work last year that attempted to quantify the extent to which the ballot cap reduced the vote totals for individual players. The final section of this article, then, builds upon the results of the first two sections to take a preliminary look at the 2016 Hall-of-Fame ballot.
Differences between Voters
Based on a somewhat earlier version of Ryan Thibs spreadsheet, 168 of 289 known 2014 ballots included the maximum 10 names, 58.1%. For 2015, the comparable numbers (about a day ago) were 172 full ballots out of 308 known ballots, 55.8%. [note: A total of 126 voters were on both lists - about 3/4 of both totals. I am not analyzing individual voters here, however, partly because "analyzing" individual ballots comes a little too close to "criticizing" individual ballots, and I would prefer not to go that route, and partly because the electorate changes every year, so that a bottom-up approach of adding up individual voters does not seem like the best approach to evaluating changes in Hall-of-Fame voting over time.]
Last year, I did a fairly detailed analysis that I won't repeat here. As part of that, I ended up estimating that of the 571 total ballots cast, 295 of them likely included the maximum 10 names (51.7%). In the 2014 voting, the average Hall-of-Fame ballot included 8.39 names. In the 2015 voting, the average Hall-of-Fame ballot included a remarkably similar 8.42 names.
Given the freakishly similar average number of names per ballot in 2015 vis-a-vis 2014, I decided that it was probably reasonable to simply assume that the distribution of ballots by name was the same in 2015 as in 2014: i.e., if 51.7% of all ballots listed 10 names in 2014, then it would seem reasonable to assume a similar 51.7% of ballots were full in 2015. There were, however, fewer ballots cast in 2015 (549) than in 2014 (571). Applying 51.7% to the former of these, 549, yields an estimated 284 10-man ballots cast in 2015.
The next table looks at the composition of known full ballots in 2014 and 2015. For 2014, this is based on 168 ballots. For 2015, this is based on 172 ballots.
The next table, then, extrapolates the results from the above table out to my estimates of 295 full ballots in 2014 and 284 full ballot in 2015 and compares the results for full-ballot voters with the results this would imply for partial-ballot voters.
|
2014 Vote % |
2015 Vote % |
| Player |
Full | Not Full |
Full | Not Full |
| 70.2% | 37.3% | 76.8% | 33.2% |
| 84.1% | 64.9% | 87.7% | 77.4% |
| 54.9% | 13.0% | 54.2% | 18.1% |
| 53.6% | 15.9% | 54.2% | 19.6% |
| - | - | 1.8% | 6.0% |
| - | - | 2.5% | 8.7% |
| 95.3% | 88.4% | - | - |
| - | - | 99.3% | 95.1% |
| 17.3% | 13.0% | 16.2% | 11.7% |
| 100.0% | 94.2% | - | - |
| 29.2% | 21.0% | 34.2% | 19.2% |
| - | - | 98.2% | 83.4% |
| 6.1% | 10.5% | 7.4% | 10.9% |
| 12.5% | 10.9% | 12.3% | 13.6% |
| 13.2% | 8.7% | 12.7% | 7.2% |
| 61.4% | 61.6% | - | - |
| 31.5% | 8.3% | 43.0% | 4.9% |
| 8.5% | 0.0% | - | - |
| 82.0% | 40.9% | 87.7% | 50.9% |
| 69.5% | 21.0% | 73.2% | 35.5% |
| 50.2% | 6.9% | 60.6% | 16.2% |
| - | - | 14.1% | 9.1% |
| 21.4% | 39.1% | 22.5% | 38.5% |
| - | - | 89.1% | 76.2% |
| 9.5% | 4.7% | 7.0% | 6.0% |
| 93.6% | 73.2% | - | - |
| 24.4% | 17.0% | 31.3% | 18.5% |
| 12.5% | 7.6% | 12.7% | 10.9% |
| Votes per Ballot |
10.0 | 6.6 |
10.0 | 6.7 |
The first thing to keep in mind when looking at these results is that they are all estimates, so that any or all of the numbers may have sampling errors associated with them. For example, of the 15 known votes for Rafael Palmeiro among the 289 known 2014 Hall-of-Fame voters, one (Tom Singer) listed Palmeiro on an 8-man ballot. So, we know with certainty that the estimated number of votes for Palmeiro on non-full ballots in the above table (0) is wrong: I did not bother to fix it as a reminder that all of these numbers are merely estimates and should be viewed as such. I would also note that the result here that the average number of names per ballot on non-full ballots increased from 2014 to 2015 is not a conclusion of this work, but is actually a direct result of my assumption that the percentage of full ballots was the same in the two years (and the known result that the names per ballot actually increased very slightly); it could, alternately, be that the percentage of ballots that were full could have increased from 2014 to 2015.
Having given those caveats, then, looking at the above table reveals some fascinating results (in my opinion).
First - and, obviously, by definition - player vote percentages are higher, on average, on full ballots than on non-full ballots. At the very top of the ballot, the differences tend not to be very great - e.g., Randy Johnson was listed on 99.3% of full ballots and 95.1% of non-full ballots. But the results are not entirely consistent and, in many cases, are quite dramatic. For example, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens are estimated to have appeared on a majority of the full ballots in both 2014 and 2015, but on fewer than 20% of non-full ballots.
In addition to Bonds and Clemens, the biggest gaps between full and non-full ballots are for Mike Piazza (87.7% vs. 50.9% in 2015), Jeff Bagwell (76.8% vs. 33.2% in 2015), Tim Raines (73.2% vs. 35.5%), Curt Schilling (60.6% vs. 16.2%), and Mike Mussina (43.0% vs. 4.9%).
While most players did better on full ballots, there were a few players who actually did better on non-full ballots: Carlos Delgado (1.8% vs. 6.0%), Nomar Garciaparra (2.5% vs. 8.7%), Don Mattingly (7.4% vs. 10.9%), Fred McGriff (12.3% vs. 13.6%), Jack Morris (61.4% vs. 61.6% in 2014), and Lee Smith (22.5% vs. 38.5%).
Looking at those two lists, there seems to be an obvious theme to me: full-ballot voters' ballots seem to be much more closely aligned with sabermetric value measures (e.g., Player won-lost records). One word of caution, though: this analysis assumes that unrevealed full ballots will tend to mirror public full ballots, which may not be the case for any specific player.
One thing that becomes evident from these results - which is at least somewhat obvious, if you think about it - is that the key to actually being elected to the Hall of Fame is to garner the support of voters who do not fill their ballots (i.e., "small Hall" voters). Of the seven players elected to the Hall of Fame in 2014 and 2015, 6 of the 7 players received over 75% of the vote on both full and non-full ballots, and the one exception, Frank Thomas just missed 75% on non-full ballots in 2014 (73.2% - which is certainly close enough to 75% that we really can't say for sure that Thomas didn't have 75% support here). In contrast, no candidate who failed to be elected had more than 65% support among non-full ballots.
But, on the bright side, while it's imperative to earn the support of non-full-ballot voters, another result that emerges quite clearly here is that non-full-ballot voters are willing to reconsider players. Craig Biggio, for example, went from 65% support from non-ballot-voters in 2014 (and missing election by two votes) to 77% support from this same pool of voters (who, of course, are not necessarily the exact same voters). Some of the other players who finished fairly high in 2014 also saw meaningful vote increases on non-full ballots from 2014 to 2015: Mike Piazza went from 41% to 51%, Tim Raines went from 21% to 35.5%, and, somewhat further down-ballot, Curt Schilling gained from 6.9% to 16.2% on non-full votes.
Focusing on changes in non-ballot voting percentages from 2014 to 2015, two other results here strike me as worthy of comment.
The one player who finished fairly high in 2014 voting who did not see improvement among non-full-ballot voters from 2014 to 2015 was Jeff Bagwell, whose vote percentage on non-full ballots fell from 37.3% in 2014 to 33.2% in 2015. That change is small enough that we can probably not be certain statistically that Bagwell's percentage actually fell among these voters (who, again, are not necessarily the same voters anyway) from 2014 to 2015, but the difference between Bagwell and Piazza and Raines certainly seems noteworthy: Piazza and Raines certainly seem to be trending toward eventual election (although Raines only has two more years to get there and may not make it in time). Bagwell, on the other hand, seems stuck - at a fairly high level, but a level that leaves him short of induction.
The other result that strikes me here is something of the opposite. From 2014 to 2015, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens saw their support on non-full ballots increase from around 15% up to around 19%. The latter number is, of course, still far, far short of what would be needed for Bonds and Clemens to be elected to the Hall of Fame, but this could suggest some weakening in the strict opposition to electing "known steroid users" that the BBWAA has exhibited in recent years. Given where they stand right now (with around 37% total support), it still seems fairly unlikely that Bonds and Clemens could reach 75% support before falling off the BBWAA ballot. But it is definitely worth watching how their support may change over the next few elections, especially now that the worst of the ballot crush of recent years seems to be ameliorating somewhat.
Ballot Cap Casualties
One of the nice features of Ryan Thibs' ballot-counting spreadsheet is that he provides a source of all of his results. Many (actually, most, this year) of these sources are simple lists (e.g., the BBWAA's website). But a number of voters wrote columns with at least some explanation of their ballot choices. After last year's election, I looked through these links for voters who voted for 10 players to try to identify players which voters might think are Hall-of-Fame worthy but were unable to vote for because of the limit that a voter cannot vote for more than 10 players. I repeated that exercise again this year.
Following the 2014 election, I was able to identify 64 voters who identified a total of 189 players who they would have voted for had they enough ballot space. Based on the known results, I projected that there were a grand total of 624 cap casualties on the 295 full ballots.
Repeating this exercise for the 2015 election, I was able to identify 44 voters who identified a total of 111 players who they would have voted for had they enough ballot space.
The results, for both 2014 and 2015, are summarized in the next table.
Overall, fewer ballot cap casualties were identified in 2015 than in 2014. One question to ask is whether the reduction in the number of ballot cap casualties between the two samples was real or was, perhaps, an artifact of the two samples.
The average full ballot in 2014 contained 3.58 names which no longer appeared on the 2015 ballot - mostly the three players elected to the Hall of Fame (Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, and Frank Thomas) and Jack Morris, whose 15 years on the ballot expired. The average full ballot in 2015 contained 3.05 names which were new to the ballot in 2015 - mostly the three first-year players who were elected to the Hall of Fame this year (Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, and John Smoltz. So, on average, a full-ballot voter in 2014 would have had 0.53 additional ballot spaces in 2015 with which to pull one of their cap casualties back onto the ballot.
Multiplying by the estimated 295 full ballots in 2014 that would be a reduction of approximately 156 ballot-cap casualties, from 624 to 468 - a decline of exactly 25%. The decline in identifiable ballot-cap casualties I found was somewhat greater than that (a decline from 189 to 111 is a decline of 41%). Anecdotally, it seemed to me that more 2015 ballots were simply presented without commentary than was the case in 2014, so I suspect the real decline in ballot-cap casualties was less than implied by a simple comparison of the numbers 189 and 111 and was probably closer to the 25% decline that could be explained by the increase in available ballot spaces on full 2014 ballots.
Looking at the specific numbers in the preceding table, a few of them may warrant some comment. First, the number that was most surprising to me was Craig Biggio. In 2014, Biggio missed election by exactly two votes, meaning he would have been elected but for the ballot cap. Knowing full well that the ballot cap cost Craig Biggio Hall-of-Fame election last year, then, more voters left him off their ballots because of the ballot cap this year. To be clear, the difference between 6 and 7 here is almost certainly not statistically significant, so it would be more accurate to say "just as many voters" left him off their ballots. But still, that one surprised me.
Nine players were named as ballot cap casualties at least 10 times in 2014. All nine of these players were also on the 2015 ballot. The number of ballot-cap references declined from 2014 to 2015 for eight of the nine players. This is to be expected, of course, as the total number of player mentions declined from 189 to 111.
The exception was Alan Trammell who was a named cap casualty 12 times in 2014 and 14 times in 2015. What's especially interesting about this is that Alan Trammell's vote percentage on full ballots actually increased from 2014 to 2015, from 24.4% to 31.3% - and, in fact, his vote percentage on non-full ballots also increased (albeit trivially), from 17.0% to 18.5%. Oddly, there seems to have been a surge in Hall-of-Fame support for Alan Trammell in 2015. Unfortunately, it pretty clearly is a case of too little, too late, as Trammell's overall support in 2015 was only 25.1% and even adding in the ballot cap casualty numbers doesn't get him terribly close to the 75% he would need to get elected in 2016, which will be his final year on the BBWAA ballot.
Among the eight players with fewer mentions in 2015 than their double-digit 2014 mentions, the player whose mentions declined the least - by far - was Tim Raines, whose ballot cap mentioned declined by only two, from 12 to 10. Raines's full-ballot support increased from 2014 to 2015, but relatively modestly, from 69.5% to 73.2%. In contrast, his support on non-full ballots increased from 21.0% to 35.5%. If the full-ballot voters who left Raines off because of the ballot cap can find room for him next year, that could bode well for Raines's chances of making a significant move toward possible election to the Hall of Fame by the BBWAA.
Of the remaining seven players with the most 2014 mentions, 5 of the 7 saw their mentions roughly cut in half. The other two, who saw dramatic declines in the number of times they were mentioned as ballot-cap casualties, were Lee Smith and Larry Walker, whose references went from 14 apiece in 2014 to 3 and 4 mentions, respectively, in 2015. Neither Smith nor Walker showed up on many full ballots in either 2014 or 2015 (less than 23% for both players both years) and neither showed any movement between years among full-ballot voters (although Walker actually gained a bit among non-full-ballot voters, from 7.6% to 10.9%). For both of these players, it could be something of an "out-of-sight, out-of-mind" where they are simply too far off ballot, such that they are beginning to fall off the radar of full-ballot voters.
2016 Hall-of-Fame Ballot: A First Look
As I said above, the average full 2014 Hall-of-Fame ballot included 3.58 names of players who were no longer on the 2015 Hall-of-Fame ballot. As also noted above, these were replaced with 3.05 players who were new to the 2015 Hall-of-Fame ballot and, since these ballots were full by definition, an additional 0.53 votes per ballot for returning players.
The average full 2015 Hall-of-Fame ballot included 3.85 names of players who will no longer be on the 2016 Hall-of-Fame ballot - the four players elected this year were all supported overwhelmingly by full-ballot voters. Players debuting on the 2016 Hall-of-Fame ballot seem extremely unlikely to earn 3 Hall-of-Fame votes per ballot like this year's debut class did. Ken Griffey, Jr. will almost certainly fill up one available ballot slot for the overwhelming majority of this year's full-ballot voters. And there are several other candidates with potentially intriguing Hall-of-Fame credentials, including Jim Edmonds, Trevor Hoffman, and perhaps Billy Wagner, Jason Kendall, Troy Glaus, and/or Mike Hampton (not to the mention the sorts of single votes thrown to past players such as Aaron Sele, Jacque Jones, and Darin Erstad, which could be tossed toward Garrett Anderson, or Chan Ho Park, or David Eckstein next year). But I would expect first-year players to take up an average of maybe 2 votes per ballot and certainly no more than 2.5.
To a large extent, then, the logjam that was such a dominant feature of the 2015 and 2014 (and, to a less-publicized extent, 2013) Hall-of-Fame ballots should be far less of an issue in 2016. If full-ballot voters are seeing 4 ballot spaces opening up and only 2 new players worth filling them, this will go a long way toward enabling full-ballot voters to put most of the players who were ballot-cap casualties this year back on their ballots in 2016. There may still be issues for some voters whose ballot-cap backlog stretches 5 or 6 players deep, but the fact is, it seems very unlikely that next year there will be a significant number of ballot-cap casualties. And if the Hall of Fame accepts the BBWAA's recommendation to expand the ballot to 12 players, this would be even more true.
What this means, then, in trying to predict 2016 Hall-of-Fame voting is that the best starting point for assessing returning candidates is probably not their 2015 vote percentages but is, instead, their 2015 vote percentages including ballot-cap casualties. The next table presents my estimate of 2015 vote percentages, had there been no ballot cap, for the 17 players who will appear on both the 2015 and 2016 Hall-of-Fame ballots. These numbers are derived based on the above table of ballot-cap casualty mentions, with those numbers blown up to the entire population of full-ballot Hall-of-Fame voters.
With that as a starting point, then, what is my best guess of what is likely to happen and/or what is worth keeping a close eye on?
Mike Piazza
Mike Piazza was the top 2015 vote-getter among players returning for the 2016 Hall-of-Fame ballot. Piazza was named very infrequently as a ballot cap casualty (in fact, he was named exactly once). Nevertheless, factoring in that one mention (blown up to account for the full population of BBWAA voters) pushes Piazza to a starting point just over 70% and 24 votes shy of election. In 2014 and 2015, amidst the most crowded Hall-of-Fame ballots probably of my lifetime, Mike Piazza was able to gain 55 and then 29 votes (even as the total electorate declined by 22 votes in the latter case). While it presumably gets ever harder to gain votes, the closer one gets to 100% (as there are simply fewer voters available to convert), I would actually be very surprised if Mike Piazza was not able to pick up the (approximately) 24 votes needed for election in 2016.
Tim Raines
The potential good news for Tim Raines is that there were a number of full-ballot voters (10) who apparently considered Tim Raines to be Hall-of-Fame worthyy but were unable to fit him on their 10-person ballot. With the ballot clearing up considerably for 2016, it seems very likely that Tim Raines should be able to pick up most of these votes. As shown above, this would have Raines with a starting vote of 62.5% entering the 2016 election. Given the 549 voters who cast ballots in 2015, this would leave Raines about 69 votes short of election.
The optimistic take on Tim Raines's candidacy is to note that Raines gained 39 votes from 2014 to 2015 (and this was with an electorate that declined by 22 votes). And, as shown earlier, Raines's 2015 gains were much more prevalent among non-full-ballot voters - where he gained an estimated 36 votes from 2014 to 2015. Those numbers certainly offer some hope that Raines can continue to increase his vote total and make up the extra 70 or so votes that he needs to be elected.
There are, however, two notes of caution. First, Raines's gain from 2014 to 2015 mostly just made up for a significant drop in Raines's vote total from 2013 (297 votes, 52.2%) to 2014 (263 votes, 46.1%). Over the past two years, Raines has actually only gained 5 net votes (although the electorate shrank by 20 over this time period). Second, because of a recent change in eligibility standards, Tim Raines only has two more years on the BBWAA ballot.
Still, if Raines can find his way onto the ballots of all of the full-ballot voters who believe him to be Hall-worthy and can gain repeat his 2014 gains among non-full-ballot voters again in 2015, he could do well enough in 2016 that the combined momentum in 2017 of Raines being the top returning vote-getter (assuming Piazza is elected in 2016) and it being Raines's final ballot could be enough to push him over the top. My initial guess for Raines's 2016 Hall-of-Fame vote percentage would be somewhere around 68%.
Jeff Bagwell
In many ways, Jeff Bagwell may be the Hall-of-Fame candidate most worth watching closely. While 3 of the top 4 returning vote getters saw significant increases in support in 2015 (Biggio, Piazza, and Raines), Jeff Bagwell's vote total basically stagnated. He actually lost 4 votes from 2014 to 2015, although the smaller electorate meant that his vote percentage increased slightly, from 54.3% to 55.7%. But that latter number remains lower than Bagwell's vote percentage in both his second and third years on the ballot (2012 and 2013, 56.0% and 59.6%, respectively). And the ballot cap numbers do not suggest a hidden reservoir of support for Bagwell as they do for Raines. Even adding in full-ballot voters who excluded Bagwell because of the ballot cap only pushes his percentage to 57.2%, which is 2.4% below the high-water mark of Bagwell's third year on the ballot.
I see three possible explanations and paths going forward.
One possibility, and I think by far the most optimistic for Bagwell, is simply that voters were overwhelmed by the last two exceptionally strong ballots and had no opportunity to really evaluate Bagwell's candidacy. It could be, then, that Bagwell's candidacy will essentially reset in 2016, picking up where it left off in, say, 2012 - when Bagwell's support grew 14.3% (from 41.7% to 56.0%) from his first to second ballot. Bagwell has five years left on the ballot and needs to increase his support by about 20%. A solid gain in 2016 of 6-8% by Bagwell - into the low-to-mid 60's would put Bagwell back on a path to 75% that would be attainable before his ballot eligibility expires.
A second possibility is that voters have considered Bagwell's case but are simply unpersuaded by it. Using traditional statistics, Bagwell's Hall-of-Fame case is fairly subtle. He wasn't a .300 hitter (barely, he was a career .297 hitter), he failed to hit 500 home runs (he hit 449 and added 488 doubles), he made only 4 All-Star games, he won only one Gold Glove. Digging more deeply, Bagwell's case becomes much stronger - he had a career on-base percentage of .408, he was an excellent base runner and fielder for a first baseman. Controlling for context, for example, his career value is similar to Hall-of-Fame first basemen Eddie Murray and Willie McCovey. If the problem is simply that voters can't see that, Bagwell's case could still be won yet, but may require a more concerted effort at persuading the doubters among the electorate. Given the relatively light rookie class on the 2016 Hall-of-Fame ballot - none of whom are very similar to Bagwell - the electorate could be open to this sort of persuasion to a greater extent than in years past. But half of Bagwell's eligibility has already been used up, and such persuasion could be an increasingly difficult sell.
The third possibility is probably the most damning to Bagwell's candidacy. There are undoubtedly some Hall-of-Fame voters who are reluctant to vote for Jeff Bagwell because of a belief that he might have used steroids during his playing career. It is clear that the number of voters who view verifiable (or even reasonably certain) steroid use as an absolute disqualifier for the Hall of Fame is sufficient to deny election. The question, however, is how many such voters are placing Bagwell into the "known steroid user" bucket. If 30% of the electorate are not voting for Bagwell because they believe he used steroids then, absent some compelling evidence that Bagwell did not use steroids (and it's very difficult to prove a negative), his Hall-of-Fame candidacy would seem doomed.
I do not really have a good feel for which of these three possibilities is the most likely. As such, my first guess as to Bagwell's 2016 vote total would probably be something very similar to the number in the above table, say 57-60%. I think that 60% is probably the magic number for Bagwell. If his 2016 vote total ends up below 60%, I suspect that the second and third possibilities raised above are the dominant factors affecting Bagwell's case and I would bet against him being able to overcome them in time to be elected by the BBWAA.
Curt Schilling and Mike Mussina
Curt Schilling and Mike Mussina potentially stand to gain more from the clearing of the last two Hall-of-Fame ballots than anybody else. In both 2014 and 2015, Mike Mussina was named as a ballot-cap casualty more frequently than anybody else. The reason for this seems fairly clear: the Hall of Fame has just elected five starting pitchers who were exact contemporaries of Mussina (and Schilling) to the Hall of Fame over the past two years. In 2016, Schilling and Mussina should move from the 4th- and 5th-best "steroid-free" starting pitchers on the ballot to the 1st- and 2nd-best "steroid-free" starting pitchers on the ballot.
Just by gaining back ballot-cap losses, Schilling and Mussina stand poised to surge to 44% and 35% support next year - up dramatically from their support two years ago (in 2014) of 29% and 20%, respectively. And with no better starting pitcher candidates coming on the ballot any time soon, I would expect their support in 2016 to actually be at least somewhat stronger than that and to grow from there.
The one possible downside caution might be if Hall-of-Fame voters are tired of voting for pitchers. That is, there may be some reluctance to believe that 7 pitchers from within the same 15-20 year period should be elected. Historically, however, this has not tended to be an issue. From 1990 through 1999, the BBWAA elected 8 starting pitchers to the Hall of Fame in 10 years. From 1972 through 1976, the BBWAA elected 6 starting pitchers in 5 years. I don't expect either Schilling or Mussina to be elected in 2016, but I think it's quite plausible to think that the BBWAA could elect 7 starting pitchers in, say, 8 years, from 2014 through 2021 (which would be Schilling's 9th and Mussina's 8th year on the ballot).
As a first guess for 2016, sticking to nice round numbers, I would guess Schilling's support at perhaps just under 50% and Mussina's support at just over 40%.
Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens
Hall of Fame support for Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens has held fairly steady in their three years on the ballot, at 35-39%. And, in both 2014 and 2015, I found very few writers who excluded either Bonds or Clemens (or both) because of the ballot cap. So, my first guess would be to expect support for Bonds and Clemens to continue to hold relatively constant in 2016 (and thereafter), at something just under 40%.
There are two potential pieces of evidence against this expectation. First, reading through Hall-of-Fame articles from full-ballot voters one sometimes gets the sense that having a full ballot - that does not include Bonds or Clemens - provides a convenient excuse to not have to reconsider one's position on steroids (e.g., "And again, I did not even factor Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa into the equation.") With the ballot logjam easing up, some full-ballot voters may decide to start "factor[ing] Barry Bonds [and] Roger Clemens [back] into the equation." And some voters who perform such a re-evaluation may change their mind in a way more favorable to Bonds and Clemens.
The second piece of evidence, which, I think, supports the above paragraph, is to go back to the second table in this article, and a comment that I made about it up there. There is some evidence - possibly weak, perhaps not statistically significant, but there nevertheless - that Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens did better among non-full-ballot voters in 2015 (~19% support) than in 2014 (~15%). Even 19% support is, of course, far below what would be necessary to actually elect Bonds or Clemens to the Hall of Fame - something that is certainly not going to happen in 2016. But it is a move in that direction.
As a first guess of Bonds and Clemens vote totals for 2016, I would probably still guess that they will hold fairly constant at perhaps 38-39%. But they could see some improvement. In the long run, I think the magic number for Bonds and Clemens is 50%. If there comes a time when a majority of the BBWAA votes for Bonds and Clemens, there might be a shift in the electorate away from a reflexive rejection of "known steroid users" with more of a shift toward forcing voters to more affirmatively make the case why Bonds and Clemens are NOT Hall-of-Famers. For the 2016 election, I think the magic number might be 40% - if Bonds and Clemens can break 40% in 2016, that would be a clear sign of improvement in their support.
Everybody Else
Frankly, nobody else who will be returning to the 2016 Hall-of-Fame ballot looks to be an obvious candidate to gain any traction. If I had to guess one name that I haven't mentioned as most likely to have a higher vote percentage in 2016 than what I show in the above table, I would probably pick Gary Sheffield, just because he was new to the ballot this year, so it is probably most difficult to be able to gauge his support. The 2016 ballot will be Alan Trammell's final appearance on a BBWAA ballot, so he could see some modest final-ballot bump; although, the number above, which incorporates 14 known ballot-cap casualties, would already be a 10.4% bump over Trammell's 2015 vote total (but would still be slightly below his all-time high vote percentage, 36.8% in 2012).
I suppose the optimistic scenario for most of these candidates would simply be if the average names per ballot remains near the historic high levels of 2014 and 2015 (8.4 names per ballot). As shown above, the numbers in the above table translate into 5.4 names per ballot. This leaves an additional 3 names per ballot available if voters want to continue to match 2014 and 2015 voting levels. More likely, though, I would guess that existing candidates' support increases by perhaps 0.5 votes per ballot - with that increase concentrated mostly in Piazza, Raines, Schilling, and Mussina, as discussed above, new candidates end up taking up a combined 2 votes per ballot, and the remaining 0.5 vote per ballot would simply be lost relative to the 2015 ballot.
First-Year Players
Ken Griffey, Jr.
Ken Griffey, Jr., will be elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame in 2016. I am probably more confident in this prediction than in any other prediction I am making here - regardless of how fuzzy some of those other predictions are. The simple fact is there's no real reason why any voter would vote against Ken Griffey, Jr. True, his post-age 30 career was something of a disappointment, but yet, he still ended up hitting 630 home runs (6th all-time) and driving in 1,836 runs (15th all-time). He made 13 All-Star teams, he won 10 Gold Gloves (1 in every year of the 1990's). He won an MVP award and finished in the top 5 in MVP voting 4 other times.
The two arguments I could maybe have thought someone might try against Griffey would be either "I won't vote for any home run hitters from the 'Steroid Era'" or "I won't vote for anybody whose last good season was at age 29". Except that the BBWAA just elected Frank Thomas - 521 career home runs, dramatically better in his 20's than in his 30's - last year. And Ken Griffey added Gold-Glove centerfield defense.
Picking a round number for Griffey's vote total next year, I'd say at least 95%.
Trevor Hoffman
Among players debuting on the 2016 Hall-of-Fame ballot, I would expect the second-highest vote total to go to Trevor Hoffman. Lee Smith has lasted 13 years on the Hall of Fame ballot (which, because of a rule change, Trevor Hoffman has no chance of matching), peaking at 50.6% support in 2012 on the basis of having held the career record for saves when he retired, with 478.
Trevor Hoffman retired with 601 career saves. So, logically, one might expect all of Lee Smith's supporters to also become Trevor Hoffman supporters. On the other hand, Lee Smith held the career saves record when he debuted on the Hall-of-Fame ballot (with 42.3% support his first year). Trevor Hoffman does not. Also, while Lee Smith's support peaked at 50.6%, it fell to 29.9% and 30.2% the last two years and, at least this year, the evidence I checked found relatively few writers who would have voted for Lee Smith but for the ballot cap.
Still, 601 is quite a bit greater than 478, and this looks to potentially be a fairly favorable ballot for marginal debut candidates. I don't have a great deal of confidence regarding what kind of Hall-of-Fame support to expect for Hoffman: perhaps 40-50%?
Jim Edmonds
The only other player debuting on the 2016 ballot who I think has any chance of actually being elected to the Hall of Fame is probably Jim Edmonds. Edmonds has some things going for him - a career OPS of .903, OPS+ of 132, 393 home runs, 8 Gold Gloves. Measured by Player won-lost records, Edmonds looks much stronger, for example, than Hall-of-Famer Andre Dawson.
His traditional Hall-of-Fame markers are not that impressive, though - 4 All-Star games, 2 top-5 MVP finishes (a 4th and a 5th), no "black ink" (i.e., he never led his league in any offensive categories). Most damaging, I think, to his candidacy in 2016 is that Jim Edmonds is debuting at the same time as another candidate with, essentially, the same short-hand Hall-of-Fame case - power-hitting, Gold-Glove-winning, centerfielder. Except that Ken Griffey, Jr. was much better.
Thinking about the candidates currently on the ballot, Larry Walker might be my best guess as the candidate most similar to Jim Edmonds, in terms of expected vote totals, which would leave Edmonds staying on the ballot for a second year, but with a long uphill battle to election.
Other Players
Troy Glaus hit 47 home runs as a 23-year-old. But he only hit 30 home runs twice after the age of 25 and was named in the Mitchell Report. He may get a handful of token votes, but that's it.
From age 22 - 26, the second-most similar player to Jason Kendall, as measured by (context-neutral) Player won-lost records, was Yogi Berra. But Kendall suffered a serious wrist injury in his age-27 season (2001), tried to play through it, and never really recovered. He also spent his prime with a series of forgettable Pittsburgh Pirates teams. For a clue to how short-career borderline Hall-of-Fame candidates who spent their prime on a losing small-market team, see the 2015 vote total of Kendall's one-time teammate, Brian Giles (zero).
For a brief time, Mike Hampton was one of the best pitchers in baseball. Now, he's remembered for failing to live up to the free-agent contract that earned him. He's Kevin Brown without the Mitchell Report reference, but also without the actual Hall-of-Fame worthy statistical record. Brown received 12 Hall-of-Fame votes his one year on the ballot. Hampton will be lucky to get half of that.
Except for saves, Billy Wagner matches up with Trevor Hoffman pretty well statistically. Of course, Trevor Hoffman's Hall-of-Fame case begins (and pretty much ends) with saves. Billy Wagner also matches up pretty well statistically with John Franco, who was one-and-done after receiving 27 votes in his only appearance on a Hall-of-Fame ballot (in 2011).
I don't think there's anybody else debuting on the 2016 ballot that warrants even a one-paragraph dismissal.
All articles are written so that they pull data directly from the most recent version of the Player won-lost database. Hence, any numbers cited within these articles should automatically incorporate the most recent update to Player won-lost records. In some cases, however, the accompanying text may have been written based on previous versions of Player won-lost records. I apologize if this results in non-sensical text in any cases.
Home
List of Articles