2021 HOF Ballot

[pclpads]

None on your list really excite me. What has kept Schilling out in the past - his mouth and far right political attitude - may trip him up again.

[Throttlesteer]

Only case for Bonds and Clemens is, they would have gotten in regardless of their cheating. The question becomes how the voters decide to make a statement. They may have to wait another year. But, like many of the other cheaters of the time, they permanently pooped in the MLB record book punch bowl. There's no going back and the records will forever be a mess.

[nat]

Essential for any hall of fame discussion season: http://www.bbhoftracker.com/

Tracks all of the publicly-released ballots up until the election announcement. As of this morning, no one is on track to be elected. Votes-per-ballot are usually lower in the not-announced group than amongst those who announce their ballots, but a few players (eg Omar Vizquel) might get a bump.

[T206BrownHindu]

Originally Posted by nat

Essential for any hall of fame discussion season: http://www.bbhoftracker.com/

Tracks all of the publicly-released ballots up until the election announcement. As of this morning, no one is on track to be elected. Votes-per-ballot are usually lower in the not-announced group than amongst those who announce their ballots, but a few players (eg Omar Vizquel) might get a bump.

Again, this is an off the field issue, but Vizquel was just accused of domestic violence, which may impact outstanding votes.

Not really sure why he’s even in the discussion, anyway.

[triwak]

Originally Posted by nat

Essential for any hall of fame discussion season: http://www.bbhoftracker.com/

Tracks all of the publicly-released ballots up until the election announcement. As of this morning, no one is on track to be elected. Votes-per-ballot are usually lower in the not-announced group than amongst those who announce their ballots, but a few players (eg Omar Vizquel) might get a bump.

Interesting. Pretty big bumps indicated for Rolen and Helton.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by triwak

Interesting. Pretty big bumps indicated for Rolen and Helton.

Historically, the numbers decline as more votes funnel in. I bet neither one reaches the 50% mark in the end.

[mattsey9]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Historically, the numbers decline as more votes funnel in. I bet neither one reaches the 50% mark in the end.

Exactly what I was going to post regarding why I don't see Schilling or anyone else getting in this cycle.

[hammertime]

Originally Posted by Throttlesteer

Only case for Bonds and Clemens is, they would have gotten in regardless of their cheating. The question becomes how the voters decide to make a statement. They may have to wait another year. But, like many of the other cheaters of the time, they permanently pooped in the MLB record book punch bowl. There's no going back and the records will forever be a mess.

Also there are a ton of players currently in the HoF who cheated during their playing days...spitballs, sign stealing, etc.

[Throttlesteer]

Originally Posted by hammertime

Also there are a ton of players currently in the HoF who cheated during their playing days...spitballs, sign stealing, etc.

Solid point. It's debatable whether previous cheating impacted the record books the way PEDs did. But, I agree that cheating has always been one of the uglier sides of the game.

[abothebear]

I have a hard time thinking that voters will be more pumped up about baseball at this point than they were last year. The top of the list probably won't see a lot of positive movement. I hope Rolen sees big gains though. My uninformed guess is that Helton will see a bump, and only Beurle and maybe Hunter from the new guys get enough votes to stick around.

[rhettyeakley]

I actually like quite a few of the guys on the list to eventually make it into the HOF even though there aren’t any huge names that are absolute no-brainers.

From the link I don’t really understand why Tim Hudson isn’t getting a little more support as a newcomer, his numbers are better than people probably realize.

Schilling should already be in, his personal politics are holding him back (which I think is stupid, even if I don’t agree with him on much of anything.)

Scott Rolen should get in, and will eventually but I like a lot of guys like Jeff Kent to get in someday as well.


All that being said with the way 2020 has been I think it would be fitting if all of the sudden something crazy like Clemens and Bonds getting the nod was to happen.

[Usc1]

I wonder if in the future any of the sign stealing astros are left out as well?

Sign stealing is worse than PEDs!

[Jason19th]

Originally Posted by Usc1

I wonder if in the future any of the sign stealing astros are left out as well?

Sign stealing is worse than PEDs!

No high school kid ever died or was seriously hurt from By sign stealing

[Neal]

No one is inducted in 2021

[Fred]

Originally Posted by Throttlesteer

Only case for Bonds and Clemens is, they would have gotten in regardless of their cheating. The question becomes how the voters decide to make a statement. They may have to wait another year. But, like many of the other cheaters of the time, they permanently pooped in the MLB record book punch bowl. There's no going back and the records will forever be a mess.

Probably right, those knuckleheads could have gotten in without the PEDs. Sadly, most of the PED users kept denying it and basically lost a lot of people's respect. Look at Rafael Palmeiro, swore during testimony he wasn't a user. Not long after that, he was busted.

I give Mark McGwire credit, at least he fessed up to it.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Fred

Probably right, those knuckleheads could have gotten in without the PEDs. Sadly, most of the PED users kept denying it and basically lost a lot of people's respect. Look at Rafael Palmeiro, swore during testimony he wasn't a user. Not long after that, he was busted.

I give Mark McGwire credit, at least he fessed up to it.

Did he? I just remember him taking the Fifth.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Did he? I just remember him taking the Fifth.

McGwire took the fifth, Palmeiro said in front of the congressional committee "I have never used steroids. Period." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAxo4pCITRM. Heres McGwire admitting to it late https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3STkQC8pVEE

[slidekellyslide]

Thanks...I didn't remember that. He really didn't need to apologize to Bud Selig though who knew exactly what was going on the whole time.

[JollyElm]

I Kent possibly say it enough...Jeff Freakin' Kent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

An absolute monster run producer at second base. It's pathetic that he isn't enshrined already.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Schilling. If Vizquel makes it he shouldn't, he wasn't even that great a fielder. Rolen I could see but not yet.

[GeoPoto]

Originally Posted by Throttlesteer

Only case for Bonds and Clemens is, they would have gotten in regardless of their cheating. The question becomes how the voters decide to make a statement. They may have to wait another year. But, like many of the other cheaters of the time, they permanently pooped in the MLB record book punch bowl. There's no going back and the records will forever be a mess.

I am agnostic regarding steroid abuse prior to MLB explicitly forbidding it. You want to disqualify (some of) the (almost certain) users, it wont bother me; you want to vote as though nobody used steroids (until the MLB ban), it won't bother me.

But, everybody should acknowledge the following regarding Bonds. His father was the first to have 300 HRs and 300 SBs. In 1998, Barry became the first to have 400 HRs and 400 SBs. Nobody cared. The focus was strictly on McGwire, Sosa, and their season HR race. During 1998, a STL reporter observed a package of steroids in McGwire's locker and wrote about it. Outrage ensued. Not about the evidence of steroid use, but about the breach of the sanctity of the clubhouse and the clubhouse reporters' duty of confidentiality. Tony La Russa, the STL manager, complained loudly and suggested the offending reporter should be banned from the clubhouse. Nobody criticized McGwire.

I don't think Bonds' (apparent) decision to "get in the HR race" despite it requiring steroid use to compete with McGwire and Sosa was outrageous. I think the "system" appeared unconcerned about how you were able to hit 70 HRs in a season. And if you could, you were celebrated like a hero.

So while I agree that believing that Bonds at 400/400 had already had a HoF career is a legitimate basis for voting yes, I don't think it is the only perspective that could justify a yes vote. Bonds was never banned from baseball (like Rose is). MLB (owners, players union, etc.) were complicit in Bonds reaching the point where experimenting with Steroids didn't seem to be breaking a cardinal rule. It seemed to be the only way to be viewed as the most valuable player in MLB. The most valuable player in MLB is what most players aspire to be.

[Seven]

I think Schilling will be the only one that gets in. Politics have kept him out which quite frankly is a load of crap. I get very annoyed at the Baseball Writers Association, because a good portion of them seem to hold this air of Moral Superiority, and if you don't fir their definition of "Worthy" then you aren't allowed into the Hall of Fame.

I understand the argument for Clemens, and Bonds to not be in the Hall of Fame. But the Hall by definition is a Museum. It celebrates the history of the game. Whether that History looks good or bad, it should still be recognized. Barry Bonds is the Home Run King, Roger Clemens Won Seven Cy Young Awards. Why Not Induct them with an asterisk on their Plaque? I understand they cheated, and cheating is wrong, but to pass over them, time and time again, in a way is more or less saying they didn't exist in my opinion.

It's not like they were banned from baseball. Nor was either suspended or thrown out for breaking the rules because the rules were shaky at best, and the owners certainly didn't care about what they were taking because they were raking in the cash from all the fans that were coming to see these muscle bound freaks of nature hit titanic home runs or throw 100 MPH Gas before it was a regular occurrence.

Any way rant aside. I think Clemens and Bonds should be enshrined in some fashion. Throw an asterisk on their plaque, make it a different color, but to keep them out doesn't make sense to me. But that's just my opinion.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by GeoPoto

.



So while I agree that believing that Bonds at 400/400 had already had a HoF career is a legitimate basis for voting yes, I don't think it is the only perspective that could justify a yes vote. Bonds was never banned from baseball (like Rose is). MLB (owners, players union, etc.) were complicit in Bonds reaching the point where experimenting with Steroids didn't seem to be breaking a cardinal rule. It seemed to be the only way to be viewed as the most valuable player in MLB. The most valuable player in MLB is what most players aspire to be.

I agree. I actually support PED users for entry, not because I like them, but because nobody IN POWER cared for 20 years. The home run increased revenue for every team. Your analysis on Bonds being overlooked for McGwire and Sosa is correct, and it bothered him. PED use is a sad story in MLB, but the players should still be enshrined.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[kmac32]

My guess is nobody. Shilling was involved in some things where he was accused of racism in the last year or so and had to apologize publiclly. With the BLM movement, this hurts his chances and the others while good ball players are not HOF with th exception of Bonds and Sosa and they are embroiled in the accusations of steroids. Do not know if it has ever happened but I say nobody.

[darwinbulldog]

My vote is for the three a-holes at the top of the list plus Manny.

[mainemule]

Schilling should have been elected a long time ago. He played for some lousy teams early in his career. Only eligible member of 3k k club, other then Clemens, not elected. One of the lowest walk ratios of any SP, especially a strikeout pitcher. Pitched in 4 WS, winning 3 and is the best post-season starter in last 50 years (since Gibson).

[packs]

He's not quite a HOFer but I always thought Tim Hudson was an underrated pitcher.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by todeen

I agree. I actually support PED users for entry, not because I like them, but because nobody IN POWER cared for 20 years

I just wish there was uniformity between the cheating of prior generations and the steroid era. Whitey Ford admitted that he doctored the ball worse than Harris from Major League. Mike Schmidt talked about how he and others would take whatever they could get their hands on. And who knows what else used to go on (back when the culture of the game was to accept just about anything but throwing games or betting on your own).

Turning Bonds, Clemens, and the rest into pariahs (while ignoring what used to go on, just because it was "ok" back then or too far back to really know or prove details) is absurd

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

I just wish there was uniformity between the cheating of prior generations and the steroid era. Whitey Ford admitted that he doctored the ball worse than Harris from Major League. Mike Schmidt talked about how he and others would take whatever they could get their hands on. And who knows what else used to go on (back when the culture of the game was to accept just about anything but throwing games or betting on your own).

Turning Bonds, Clemens, and the rest into pariahs (while ignoring what used to go on, just because it was "ok" back then or too far back to really know or prove details) is absurd

I'm not even really against electing Bonds and Clemens, but there is a titanic practical difference. Ford and Schmidt were not able to post video game statistics. Players in the 1970's did not bash 50 home runs with such ease that even mediocre players like Brady Anderson hit 50. They did not post seasons not just setting new records but obliterating them. The difference between greenies and the steroids the sluggers of the 90's/00's used is vast, but no scientific explanation serves as well as just looking at the numbers produced with them.

One would be hard pressed to find a player who never bent or broke a rule for a single play their entire career, but there's a huge difference between Ford and Perry throwing a spitter sometimes and what happened in the steroid era.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by G1911

I'm not even really against electing Bonds and Clemens, but there is a titanic practical difference. Ford and Schmidt were not able to post video game statistics. Players in the 1970's did not bash 50 home runs with such ease that even mediocre players like Brady Anderson hit 50. They did not post seasons not just setting new records but obliterating them. The difference between greenies and the steroids the sluggers of the 90's/00's used is vast, but no scientific explanation serves as well as just looking at the numbers produced with them.

One would be hard pressed to find a player who never bent or broke a rule for a single play their entire career, but there's a huge difference between Ford and Perry throwing a spitter sometimes and what happened in the steroid era.

The steroid era obviously turned some great players into superhuman ones. But that doesn't mean that the likelihood of cheating turning some past good players into HOFers is such a drastically different concept.

Schmidt may have never had HOF numbers otherwise. And you're really discounting how much it could have helped Ford.

I don't care if cheating means someone hit 65 HRs who would've hit 45, or if it means they hit 38 instead of 25. Both players should be seen similarly. Or at minimum, at least far from the polar opposite of vilifying one group while absolving the other

[MacDice]

If you use the theory that Roger and Barry were Hall of Famers before PED’s than wasn’t Pete Rose a HOFer before gambling?

[Seven]

Originally Posted by MacDice

If you use the theory that Roger and Barry were Hall of Famers before PED’s than wasn’t Pete Rose a HOFer before gambling?

I think Rose is a Hall of Famer but there's also a distinction that needs to be noted. Rose was banned from Baseball by the Commissioner. Bonds and Clemens were never thrown out of the sport, they were never handed lifetime suspensions, hell they never got suspended in the first place. I'm not saying they didn't cheat, but if we're putting all cards on the table, if Cancesco never publishes his book, they're probably in the Hall Already.

[Wildfireschulte]

Is there any doubt that there are a bunch of PED users already in the HOF? Without naming names, I can think of a dozen guys that I suspect. It’s wrong that the writers get to ignore obvious suspicions for some and continue to punish others.

[bounce]

The PEDs happened, I don't mind the statements by holding them out to year 10 if that's what happens, but if for some reason Bonds/Clemens and others DON'T MAKE IT, it becomes similar to the Pete Rose and Joe Jackson farces.


I WOULD VOTE FOR THESE
- Curt Schilling 70.0% 9th year - being a jerk is the main turn off here, but I do think he gets home this year
- Roger Clemens 61.0% 9th year - this is a no brainer, but again I'm fine if people hold out until year 10
- Barry Bonds 60.7% 9th year - ditto Roger
- Manny Ramírez 28.2% 5th year - he was quirky for sure and the PEDs definitely padded stats, but in the end he was clutch and you still gotta hit it
- Sammy Sosa 13.9% 9th year - PEDs padded stats but three 60 HR seasons and 600 total, and was anyone more fun to watch in the late 90s? He's a polarizing guy now and the Cubs spat with him I think has more to do with his low voting than anything. If they'd squash that beef, I think his totals would jump huge. He probably misses out, and he and Big Mac get in together at a later date from the veterans committee. I'd be fine with that at this point, they belong together.
- Andy Pettitte 11.3% 3rd year - I realize this one is somewhat borderline and controversial, but...250 wins, all-time postseason win leader (yes I know it was expanded playoffs but he's ahead by 4 wins I think?), nearly 2500 Ks, and his post-season stats are essentially identical to regular season. PEDs are an issue obviously, but he's a likable guy and teammates loved him. To me, this is the pitcher equivalent to Harold Baines, Tim Raines and a few others. If we're going to treat hitters like that, don't we have to treat some pitchers similarly?

I WANT TO STUDY A LITTLE MORE, BUT I MIGHT CONSIDER THESE
Omar Vizquel 52.6% 4th year - so much of an accumulator, how good was the defense really? It's why I want to look some more. Recent headlines don't help.
Billy Wagner 31.7% 6th year - closers are tough to gauge, so I want to compare to peers and evaluate where he stands in that group.
Gary Sheffield 30.5% 7th year - somewhat of an accumulator, I think what also hurts him quite a bit is he doesn't really have an anchor team to help him along? I guess it's probably Marlins. This to me is a case of a little bit rough personality mixed with too much free agency movement...and of course PEDs, but again we gotta eventually move past that.

I HAVE TROUBLE WITH THESE
Scott Rolen 35.3% 4th year - this guy was a pro's pro, I really like him but I struggle to put the case together. He and Lance Berkman are who I think of when I think just outside looking in.
Todd Helton 29.2% 3rd year - another guy who was a pro's pro, but I think the Colorado bit actually hurts from a stat perspective and again just a struggle to put the whole case together. Put him with Rolen and Berkman.
Jeff Kent 27.5% 8th year - he was really good for a few years, but goodness he was a difficult personality and you don't see too many teammates singing the praises of his locker room demeanor
Andruw Jones 19.4% 4th year - phenomenal talent that had some big moments, but I don't feel like his star burned bright for long enough
Bobby Abreu 5.5% 2nd year - solid player, but not HOF caliber

[Rich Klein]

If you really want to keep informed on the voting; this update is a must

http://www.bbhoftracker.com/

Usually for players such as the top 3, you need to be comfortably past 75 percent to get in. As of today, I doubt anyone will be elected from the new player world. If anyone gets in, my instinct says it is Curt Schilling whom is being kept back from getting in because of his extreme political views.

My instinct and personal belief is if he kept slightly quieter about those, he'd already be in the HOF.

Rich

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Wildfireschulte

Is there any doubt that there are a bunch of PED users already in the HOF? Without naming names, I can think of a dozen guys that I suspect. It’s wrong that the writers get to ignore obvious suspicions for some and continue to punish others.

Piazza, Bagwell, Ivan Rodriguez. <----there you go.

[stlcardsfan]

I laughed out loud at LaTroy Hawkins.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Piazza, Bagwell, Ivan Rodriguez. <----there you go.

Nolan Ryan, Tony Gwynn, and Ricky Henderson in case you want a few more for the list.

[kevtermeg]

I am more interested to see who get in from the BWAAA Golden Days and Early Baseball era's. The next induction I am any interest in is Ichiro in 2023.

Golden Days: December of 2021 for inclusion in the Class of 2022
Early Baseball: December of 2021 for inclusion in the Class of 2022

Since you are asking for my opinion I would vote for Schilling, Bonds and Clemens to get the issue of ped's over with once and for all.

When you think of who has made a big impact on baseball I think of Sy Berger from Topps. Without him who knows what the bb card industry would be like without his influence. If you let him in then Mr Goudey would be next.

Go Tigers!!

[triwak]

Originally Posted by kevtermeg

I am more interested to see who get in from the BWAAA Golden Days and Early Baseball era's. The next induction I am any interest in is Ichiro in 2023.

Golden Days: December of 2021 for inclusion in the Class of 2022
Early Baseball: December of 2021 for inclusion in the Class of 2022

Agreed about having huge interest in these two Era's committee votes. I still don't really understand why they were delayed (due to Covid). Could they not have been held virtually? The committees are only 16 members, each?

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by triwak

Agreed about having huge interest in these two Era's committee votes. I still don't really understand why they were delayed (due to Covid). Could they not have been held virtually? The committees are only 16 members, each?

They have to meet in person so that the dominant members can strong-arm the other voters into electing non-deserving, pet candidates to the Hall (See Tony LaRussa and Harold Baines).

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by GeoPoto

I am agnostic regarding steroid abuse prior to MLB explicitly forbidding it. You want to disqualify (some of) the (almost certain) users, it wont bother me; you want to vote as though nobody used steroids (until the MLB ban), it won't bother me.

But, everybody should acknowledge the following regarding Bonds. His father was the first to have 300 HRs and 300 SBs. In 1998, Barry became the first to have 400 HRs and 400 SBs. Nobody cared. The focus was strictly on McGwire, Sosa, and their season HR race. During 1998, a STL reporter observed a package of steroids in McGwire's locker and wrote about it. Outrage ensued. Not about the evidence of steroid use, but about the breach of the sanctity of the clubhouse and the clubhouse reporters' duty of confidentiality. Tony La Russa, the STL manager, complained loudly and suggested the offending reporter should be banned from the clubhouse. Nobody criticized McGwire.

I don't think Bonds' (apparent) decision to "get in the HR race" despite it requiring steroid use to compete with McGwire and Sosa was outrageous. I think the "system" appeared unconcerned about how you were able to hit 70 HRs in a season. And if you could, you were celebrated like a hero.

So while I agree that believing that Bonds at 400/400 had already had a HoF career is a legitimate basis for voting yes, I don't think it is the only perspective that could justify a yes vote. Bonds was never banned from baseball (like Rose is). MLB (owners, players union, etc.) were complicit in Bonds reaching the point where experimenting with Steroids didn't seem to be breaking a cardinal rule. It seemed to be the only way to be viewed as the most valuable player in MLB. The most valuable player in MLB is what most players aspire to be.

This is exactly why I cannot believe LaRussa got into the HOF so easily. Why the free pass, and blatant double-standard for managers? He knew damn well what was going on and completely espoused it.

And it was even worse when he managed the Athletics with McGwire, Canseco, Giambi and all the other 'roiders. There may have been a year or two of his managing career that was steroid-free, but I sincerely doubt it. He's every bit as guilty as any of them.

And there's also this...

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/...ourt-docs-show

A repeat offender and stellar guy.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by pclpads

None on your list really excite me. What has kept Schilling out in the past - his mouth and far right political attitude - may trip him up again.

Sad that politics has to come into play for a HOF vote.

[Jason19th]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Sad that politics has to come into play for a HOF vote.

I actually don’t think that it’s really his politics that keep Shilling out. When you look at his record in context more guys with his type of record are out then in. Consider Luis Tiant, Lew Burdette , Ron Guidry, Mickie Lolich, Allie Reynolds, Billy Pierce, Mike Cueller, Vida Blue, Kevin Brown, and Bob Welch. Shilling has some big splash moments but that’s not the standard.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Sad that politics has to come into play for a HOF vote.

Pathetic is probably a better word... if that is in fact the case.

[Exhibitman]

The 2021 newbies are probably the worst list I've ever seen. Not one of them is a serious threat to be elected. As for the reruns, we've had the discussion on them before.

Schilling will probably Don Sutton his way in this year. I loathe Schilling: I hate his politics, I hate that he beat the Yankees, I hate his f***ing sock, I hate the Red Sox, I hate that his name is a homophone for the most loathesome bidding method at auctions, I just hate every aspect of him. I'd not vote for him because I think post-play conduct is a consideration, but he does have the chops baseball-wise to justify his election.

[Jason19th]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

The 2021 newbies are probably the worst list I've ever seen. Not one of them is a serious threat to be elected. As for the reruns, we've had the discussion on them before.

Schilling will probably Don Sutton his way in this year. I loathe Schilling: I hate his politics, I hate that he beat the Yankees, I hate his f***ing sock, I hate the Red Sox, I hate that his name is a homophone for the most loathesome bidding method at auctions, I just hate every aspect of him. I'd not vote for him because I think post-play conduct is a consideration, but he does have the chops baseball-wise to justify his election.

I actually think that Sutton is a pretty good comp on a per season basis. But that illustrates my point. Sutton is in as a compiler not a true year to year superstar. He deserves to get in but only based on longevity. He won 110 more games then Shilling.

[Brian Van Horn]

Off subject, but also coming up for a vote in 2021.

[ronniehatesjazz]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

Pathetic is probably a better word... if that is in fact the case.

Amen to that! I think it's just a small hurdle but still not right. I think most voters who lean the other side will drop him down a peg or two. That's unfortunate for a borderline guy like Schilling. If he were unquestionably a HOFer I think even far left voters would give him a nod. There would always be one or two voters who would foolishly vote him down for something like that but most would vote for him IMO.

Not the greatest analogy but imagine conservative NBA HOF voters on Lebron in the future. They may despise his politics but how could you seriously vote against him? That would not be the same for a borderline player.

Also, as a side note, I've never understood the allure of Scott Rolen. Overhyped since he was a prospect and I would personally group him in with Harold Baines, but sadly Baines at least is a great guy... cant say the same for Rolen.

[Throttlesteer]

Originally Posted by ronniehatesjazz

Not the greatest analogy but imagine conservative NBA HOF voters on Lebron in the future. They may despise his politics but how could you seriously vote against him?

Are there any conservative NBA HOF voters? This would surprise me