That is generally what happens. Last year Lee Smith was the exception (he got 29.9% vs. 24.4% on public ballots). There were a handful of other guys that stayed about the same. Here are last year's public vs. actual results: http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsstand/discussion/the_2013_hof_ballot_collecting_gizmo http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof_2014.shtml
I'm assuming the percentages go down because the a-holes that send in blank/asinine ballots aren't going to be public about it.
Looking at the vote tracker astounds me. I am seeing an abundance of people that voted for Biggio and not Bagwell. That would be explainable due to the steroids issue. However, a good handful of these guys still voted for Bonds and Clemens. That in and of itself shows the fault of using BBWAA writers ost of whom have no clue.
It's more complicated than that as a lot of writes have explained. The limit on the ballot, limits on eligibility years, etc. forces writers to make decisions that they shouldn't have to make. They might for example want to vote Bagwell over Biggio but then realize that Bagwell isn't going to make it this year but if they choose not to vote for Biggio they might knock him out as well. They could then choose to vote for both but they have to take someone else off. Then they have to worry about other arbitrary things like that player losing eligibility for not crossing a threshold, impacting his future votes, etc. There needs to be reform for sure, but to say that the BBWAA writers are just dumb is wrong. MANY have been begging the Hall of Fame to change the methodology for years now.
Are you of the opinion that everyone who doesn't vote for your choices is automatically an idiot? I have no problem personally with their being some skepticism and variance among the voters. I think it's a big part of why the Baseball Hall of Fame is easily the most prestigious hall of fame in America. My ballot would look like this: Pedro Randy Johnson Tim Raines Craig Biggio Jeff Bagwell Mike Mussina Mike Piazza John Smoltz I do differentiate between players who people have rumors about and people we know about in terms of steroids. If we KNOW they took steroids, I won't vote for them. At least today. I've gone back and forth on this a million times lol.
It's inconsistent to have Frank Thomas be a first ballot Hall of Famer while Bags is waiting in his 4th year of eligibility. IDENTICAL careers: same birthday, same age, same position, same career numbers, won MVP the same year, made their lone World Series the same year, and most importantly, their careers spanned the same steroids era, while both were big hitters but never had any direct accusations made against them. Either they both wait forever, or they both get in. These voters have no rhyme or reason on how they do things.
First, I never said anyone was an idiot . I just said I was confused that there were people that voted for Biggio over Bagwell and the steroid controversy wasn't the reason and some were not due to ballot limitations. I'm simply trying to determine the reasoning behind why voters voted the way they did. If you go by stats and numbers Bagwell was arguably a superior player to Biggio. What reasoning are voters using to vote for one over the other besides steroids and ballot limits? My problem is you have voters who do not keep up with the game but are still voters because they pay dues to the BBWAA as a status thing. It's like saying someone is qualified to create a list of great physicians because they once stayed in a hospital. You have other writers that don't vote for guys not because they aren't good players but because they didn't like them personally or have some other grudge against them.
Somebody who doesn't think Bagwell was good enough to be in the HOF, shouldn't be voting (excluding guys who see the HOF as a place for only the ridiculously great, ie Babe Ruth, but it is clear over 80% of voters don't feel that way).
35.4%: 98.5 - R. Johnson 97.5 - P. Martinez 86.1 - Smoltz 84.7 - Biggio 75.7 - Piazza ———————————— 63.4 - Raines 61.9 - Bagwell
It's been disappointing to watch him fall each day further and further (not that I expected him to be elected) but I'm still hoping he crosses 60%, which would be an incredible one-year jump. And as long as he does better than last year, that's not a bad thing.
I'm disappointed with the percentages on Bagwell as well... it's disheartening to see him drop every time I refresh that page.
god damn travesty...sad whom they let vote Bags is clearly a HOFer. There shouldnt be a 10 player limit. Olney put it well, the 10-player limit makes the players like planes on a runway...
An easy argument can be made about how Bagwell was a better overall player. He was a better defender, a better base runner. Their stats are eerily close despite the 4 fewer seasons and 200 fewer games that Bags played.
Is the announcement a press release or is there a show. If a show is there a stream for it? edit: Never mind found it at MLB.com
I'll second the comment that anyone who thinks Baggy isn't a HOF should have their vote taken away!!!!!!!
