Today's Trivia Question

[Yoda]

With apologies to Frank, and with the new HOF inductees now named, here is a trivia question, but not yet the answers: Which HOF members received the highest percentage of votes cast and conversely the lowest. No peeking.

[darwinbulldog]

Griffey and Sutter?

[slipk1068]

Seaver and Sutton

[timn1]

which I looked up... apparently almost 5% of the voters didn't feel Babe Ruth should be in there in 1936. Almost 2% didn't vote for Ty Cobb. Mystifying.

[timn1]

only got 76% of the vote in 1937

[rats60]

Griffey received the highest percentage surpassing the previous high by Tom Seaver. I don't know who received the lowest total unless you are referring to Luke Appling who didn't receive 75% but since no one was elected, they held a runoff election which he won. So, technically he was elected with less than 3/4 of the vote.

[Butch7999]

Hall of Fame vote-casting is a little more complicated than some people assume.
Not voting for some unquestionably deserving sure-fire mortal lock candidate generally isn't a vote against the guy --
it's a voter thinking "that guy is an unquestionably deserving sure-fire mortal lock for the Hall, all the other voters
are going to vote for him, so he doesn't need my vote, but this other borderline candidate I like needs my vote,
so he's one of the guys I'll vote for instead of the sure-fire mortal lock guy."
That's why few eligible players, even the most obvious and most deserving candidates, get 100% of the votes.

A hockey history group ran an interesting exercise several years ago, in which a couple of dozen or so
hockey historians participated in "re-voting" the Hockey Hall of Fame from scratch, a fresh vote every few days.
It took about a year to complete, and the vote manoeuvering got pretty clever and involved as the "years" went by,
players were voted in, failed to be elected but had enough support to be rolled over as eligible for subsequent votes,
fell off the eligibility list after several "years," and so on.
It would be fascinating to see the results of a similar exercise in here to "re-vote" the baseball hall.

[quitcrab]

Brooks Robinson... Highest percent

[swarmee]

When you say lowest percent, do you mean in one year or over a 15 year period?

[Bigdaddy]

The highest did belong to Seaver with 98.X% I believe, but as the above poster said, Griffey has since passed that mark.

On the low end, I remember someone getting less than 5% while on the ballot but then voted in by a special committee. I'm thinking it was Rick Ferrell.

[timn1]

But still, 76% for Cy Young?

Originally Posted by Butch7999

Hall of Fame vote-casting is a little more complicated than some people assume.
Not voting for some unquestionably deserving sure-fire mortal lock candidate generally isn't a vote against the guy --
it's a voter thinking "that guy is an unquestionably deserving sure-fire mortal lock for the Hall, all the other voters
are going to vote for him, so he doesn't need my vote, but this other borderline candidate I like needs my vote,
so he's one of the guys I'll vote for instead of the sure-fire mortal lock guy."
That's why few eligible players, even the most obvious and most deserving candidates, get 100% of the votes.

A hockey history group ran an interesting exercise several years ago, in which a couple of dozen or so
hockey historians participated in "re-voting" the Hockey Hall of Fame from scratch, a fresh vote every few days.
It took about a year to complete, and the vote manoeuvering got pretty clever and involved as the "years" went by,
players were voted in, failed to be elected but had enough support to be rolled over as eligible for subsequent votes,
fell off the eligibility list after several "years," and so on.
It would be fascinating to see the results of a similar exercise in here to "re-vote" the baseball hall.

[Yoda]

Junior is the correct answer for the highest percentage with 99.3% while Tony Perez, who was admitted in 2000, is the lowest at 77.1%. Thanks for playing.

[BleedinBlue]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Tony Perez, who was admitted in 2000, is the lowest at 77.1%. Thanks for playing.

Are you sure? My research ( I looked it up) showed that three players were elected with 75.4% of the vote:
Fergie Jenkins in 1991 got 334 of 443 votes. 75.395%
Ralph Kiner in 1975 got 273 of 362 votes. 75.414%
Al Simmons in 1953 got 199 of 264 votes. 75.379%

I believe Al Simmons is the correct answer if you only count regular BBWAA voting and not Runoff elections.

Charlie Gehringer was elected in a runoff in 1949 with 66.7% of the regular vote.
Luke Appling was elected in a runoff in 1964 with 70.6% of the regular vote.
Red Ruffing was elected in a runoff in 1967 with 72.6% of the regular vote.

[Butch7999]

Originally Posted by timn1

But still, 76% for Cy Young?

Not saying it entirely explains or excuses it, but that (1937) was just the second year of voting,
so there were a trainload of worthy candidates.
Pete Alexander missed the cut that year with just 62% (he was elected the following year),
Keeler and Eddie Collins were named on just 57% of the ballots, Sisler 53% (all three were
elected in 1939).
Young actually got only 49% support in the first year of voting, finishing eighth behind
the Original Five enshrinees, Lajoie, and Speaker.
Shoot, Hornsby earned only 46% his first year eligible (1936), ninth among those candidates,
and wasn't ushered in until 1942.

Given the annual discussions in here on who's worthy / who isn't / Hall of Fame / Hall of Pretty Good,
it seems a little surprising no one's keen on assembling participants from this board and organizing a re-vote...

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by BleedinBlue

Are you sure? My research ( I looked it up) showed that three players were elected with 75.4% of the vote:
Fergie Jenkins in 1991 got 334 of 443 votes. 75.395%
Ralph Kiner in 1975 got 273 of 362 votes. 75.414%
Al Simmons in 1953 got 199 of 264 votes. 75.379%

I believe Al Simmons is the correct answer if you only count regular BBWAA voting and not Runoff elections.

Charlie Gehringer was elected in a runoff in 1949 with 66.7% of the regular vote.
Luke Appling was elected in a runoff in 1964 with 70.6% of the regular vote.
Red Ruffing was elected in a runoff in 1967 with 72.6% of the regular vote.

I really blew it. Forgot to look at the next page of my reference. You are right; the lowest percentage falls to Al Simmons at the number you quoted. Sorry. Going away now to lick my trivia embarrassment wounds.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Yoda

I really blew it. Forgot to look at the next page of my reference. You are right; the lowest percentage falls to Al Simmons at the number you quoted. Sorry. Going away now to lick my trivia embarrassment wounds.

Careful you must be, when using such a user-name.


.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Butch7999

Not saying it entirely explains or excuses it, but that (1937) was just the second year of voting,
so there were a trainload of worthy candidates.
Pete Alexander missed the cut that year with just 62% (he was elected the following year),
Keeler and Eddie Collins were named on just 57% of the ballots, Sisler 53% (all three were
elected in 1939).
Young actually got only 49% support in the first year of voting, finishing eighth behind
the Original Five enshrinees, Lajoie, and Speaker.
Shoot, Hornsby earned only 46% his first year eligible (1936), ninth among those candidates,
and wasn't ushered in until 1942.

Given the annual discussions in here on who's worthy / who isn't / Hall of Fame / Hall of Pretty Good,
it seems a little surprising no one's keen on assembling participants from this board and organizing a re-vote...

There were 2 ballots in 1936. One for 19th century players and one for 20th. Cy Young's career was split between the two centuries so there was confusion among the voters. Some voted for him on one ballot and others voted for him on the other resulting in Cy not being elected by either. I think that carried over to the 1937 with Cy receiving fewer votes than he should have.

[timn1]

Wow, that probably does explain it, at least somewhat-

Butch, I think a revote would be fun-

Originally Posted by rats60

There were 2 ballots in 1936. One for 19th century players and one for 20th. Cy Young's career was split between the two centuries so there was confusion among the voters. Some voted for him on one ballot and others voted for him on the other resulting in Cy not being elected by either. I think that carried over to the 1937 with Cy receiving fewer votes than he should have.

[SMPEP]

In a re-vote ... I'd vote against 97% of the Hall of Fame.

In my mind there are only 9 HOFers: Babe, Wajo, Ty Cobb, Cy Young, Ted Williams, Musial, Aaron, Mays, and Mantle.

The rest are merely members of the Hall of Really Good players.

[Butch7999]

Originally Posted by rats60

There were 2 ballots in 1936. One for 19th century players and one for 20th. Cy Young's career was split between the two centuries so there was confusion among the voters. Some voted for him on one ballot and others voted for him on the other resulting in Cy not being elected by either. I think that carried over to the 1937 with Cy receiving fewer votes than he should have.

Excellent point, Rats. Thanks for the clarification.

Originally Posted by Butch7999

... Shoot, Hornsby earned only 46% his first year eligible (1936), ninth among those candidates, and wasn't ushered in until 1942.

We'll also note that Hornsby was still dabbling at the plate as a player/manager in '36 and '37.

Originally Posted by timn1

Butch, I think a revote would be fun-

Now we just need an even-tempered soul with a lot of time on his hands to moderate the discussions
and tabulate the votes.
And probably at least a couple of dozen board members to commit to taking on long-term roles as BBWAA voters.

[timn1]

Let’s forget the idea of re-voting, then. What would be the point with the attitude around?

Originally Posted by SMPEP

In a re-vote ... I'd vote against 97% of the Hall of Fame.

In my mind there are only 9 HOFers: Babe, Wajo, Ty Cobb, Cy Young, Ted Williams, Musial, Aaron, Mays, and Mantle.

The rest are merely members of the Hall of Really Good players.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by SMPEP

In a re-vote ... I'd vote against 97% of the Hall of Fame.

In my mind there are only 9 HOFers: Babe, Wajo, Ty Cobb, Cy Young, Ted Williams, Musial, Aaron, Mays, and Mantle.

The rest are merely members of the Hall of Really Good players.

Couldn't make it an even 10 for ol' Johannes?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Couldn't make it an even 10 for ol' Johannes?

I can think of at least 12 that were really great.

[sac_bunt]

Originally Posted by SMPEP

In a re-vote ... I'd vote against 97% of the Hall of Fame.

In my mind there are only 9 HOFers: Babe, Wajo, Ty Cobb, Cy Young, Ted Williams, Musial, Aaron, Mays, and Mantle.

The rest are merely members of the Hall of Really Good players.

Nobody that played after 1976 is worthy? 🤔
What would a millennial say to that? 😁