2016 Hall of Fame Vote: How Good Were My Predictions?
| 2015 Vote Percentage | |||
| Player | Predicted | Actual | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ken Griffey Jr. | 95.3% | 99.3% | 4.0% |
| Mike Piazza | 81.0% | 83.0% | 1.9% |
| Jeff Bagwell | 60.6% | 71.6% | 11.0% |
| Tim Raines Sr. | 69.9% | 69.8% | -0.2% |
| Trevor Hoffman | 45.2% | 67.3% | 22.1% |
| Curt Schilling | 51.4% | 52.3% | 0.9% |
| Roger Clemens | 39.4% | 45.2% | 5.8% |
| Barry Bonds | 38.8% | 44.3% | 5.5% |
| Edgar Martinez | 35.2% | 43.4% | 8.2% |
| Mike Mussina | 43.1% | 43.0% | -0.1% |
| Alan Trammell | 39.9% | 40.9% | 1.0% |
| Lee Smith | 30.7% | 34.1% | 3.4% |
| Fred McGriff | 17.5% | 20.9% | 3.4% |
| Jeff Kent | 22.2% | 16.6% | -5.6% |
| Larry Walker | 14.7% | 15.5% | 0.7% |
| Mark McGwire | 16.6% | 12.3% | -4.4% |
| Gary Sheffield | 16.6% | 11.6% | -5.0% |
| Billy Wagner | 5.8% | 10.5% | 4.7% |
| Sammy Sosa | 5.5% | 7.0% | 1.5% |
| Jim Edmonds | 13.6% | 2.5% | -11.1% |
| Nomar Garciaparra | 4.9% | 1.8% | -3.1% |
| Mike Sweeney | 0.0% | 0.7% | 0.7% |
| David Eckstein | 1.7% | 0.5% | -1.3% |
| Jason Kendall | 0.0% | 0.5% | 0.5% |
| Garret Anderson | 0.4% | 0.2% | -0.2% |
| Randy Winn | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Mike Lowell | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Brad Ausmus | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Luis A. Castillo | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Mark Grudzielanek | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Troy Glaus | 0.2% | 0.0% | -0.2% |
| Mike Hampton | 1.3% | 0.0% | -1.3% |
| Avg. Names per Ballot | 7.5 | 7.9 | 0.4 |
What I Got RightOf the 17 players who also appeared on the 2015 ballot, my prediction came within 1% of the actual vote total for five of them: Tim Raines, Curt Schilling, Mike Mussina, Alan Trammell, and Larry Walker.
What I Sort of Got RightIn 2015, the average Hall-of-Fame ballot included 8.42 names. I correctly predicted that would go down. But I over-estimated how much that would go down. I predicted 7.5 names per ballot. Actual voters included 7.9 names per ballot, about 5% more than I predicted.
What I Got WrongEven trying to present my results in the best light possible, there were several predictions that were just flat-out wrong.
I did not predict the surge in voting for Jeff Bagwell, missing his final vote percentage by 11.0%. I discussed Bagwell in some detail in my original article. I'll repeat that here and let readers draw their own conclusions.Jeff Bagwell
In many ways, Jeff Bagwell may be the Hall-of-Fame candidate worth watching most 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. Nor did Bagwell do appreciably worse among Non-Public voters than he did among Public voters. Even adding in full-ballot voters who excluded Bagwell because of the ballot cap and removing one-third of Non-Public voters only pushes Bagwell's percentage to 58.5%, which would still be about 1% 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 15-20%. 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.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, perhaps plus 5-10 votes. 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.
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 also missed the surge in voting for Edgar Martinez, missing his vote total by 8.2%.Edgar Martinez
Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens have been pretty much a package deal on Hall-of-Fame ballots since they debuted together in 2013. Last year, their vote totals differed by 4 (Clemens out-polled Bonds 206-202). This year, Clemens maintained his 4 vote lead, 199-195. Clemens and Bonds both out-performed my prediction by 5-6%.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 that 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 beyond the gains implicit in the above table. 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.
First-Year PlayersThe hardest players to predict in Hall-of-Fame voting are undoubtedly the first-year players. For players who have been on the ballot before, especially those who have been on for several years, we have a starting point for estimating their support. Even in cases where, perhaps, one may not understand why somebody would vote (or how one could possibly not vote) for a particular candidate, if that candidate has received 20% or 30% or 60% of the vote in previous years, we can more easily set aside our opinion of the player's candidacy and simply accept historical reality. With first-year candidates, however, we simply don't have that.
I correctly predicted that one first-year player would be elected to the Hall of Fame, Ken Griffey, Jr., and he would be elected overwhelmingly.But my actual percentage predictions missed fairly badly on all of Hoffman, Wagner, and Edmonds.
I correctly predicted that Trevor Hoffman would finish second among first-year players.
I correctly predicted that only two other first-year players would receive more than a trivial number of votes: Billy Wagner and Jim Edmonds.