Hall of Fame Ballot Tracker Housekeeping

Now that it’s all over and we know who got in (Barry Larkin) and who’s probably getting in next year (Jack Morris), I went in and did the usual post-results housekeeping on the ballot tracker.

  • Percentage results have been added, both actual and public only
  • Total number of votes cast by each voter has been added
  • I tried to make it look a little less ugly, but didn’t really succeed.

The actual results and public ballot results were pretty close in most cases, which is nice. There were some exceptions, of course.

  • Lots of people who don’t make their ballots public love Don Mattingly. He got 17.8% of the total vote but just under 10% from the public ballots.
  • Jack Morris was on 58.7% of public ballots, and 66.7% total ballots.
  • Tim Raines was the opposite of Morris. He was on 57.14% of public ballots and 48.7% total ballots.

Tim Raines received 37.5% of the total vote last year, so I was really happy to see him gain 10%. It means he will probably hang on through the crazy ballot time coming up and has a real chance to get voted in by the writers at some point.

You can check out the final version of everything here. If work stops kicking my ass I’ll see if I can figure out anything fun to do with it in the next few days.

GDE Error: Unable to load profile settings

3 Comments

  1. Great job, as always. Was pretty close on my % predictions after looking at your work from the past few years. It definitely seems that the unpublished ballots are anti-“saber” candidates while being more likely to support players like Morris, Mattingly, Bernie, etc whose candidacy is based more in the narrative than their actual performances. Not a surprise, but, as some have suggested, it would be great for all votes to be made public so that the reasoning behind them could be explained.

  2. In short, younger guys who are earlier in their careers, more likely to be aware of the latest research, and more likely to be writing stories/columns now (and posting them on the internet) are more likely to vote for sabremetric candidates like Raines and against nostaligic/”gut feel” candidates like Mattingly/Morris. Older guys who likely disdain the latest research, and who may have moved past the writing phase of their careers (due to promotion to editor positions or retirement) are more likely to vote against sabermetric candidates and in favor of sentimental candidates.

Leave a Reply