What does the Hall-of-Fame Tracker Indicate?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Bonds, Clemens, and ARod are three of the greatest players of all time, but at least as they have interacted with the baseball world are PR disasters and widely regarded as A holes. Ortiz isn't even close to their talent or achievement level, but he is a smiling, positive, beloved figure. Hell, IMO having watched them both he's a clear notch below Manny, another PR disaster. It seems to make all the difference in the world. Just spin and flip whatever argument you want to make to justify the result.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Bonds, Clemens, and ARod are three of the greatest players of all time, but at least as they have interacted with the baseball world are PR disasters and widely regarded as A holes. Ortiz isn't even close to their talent or achievement level, but he is a smiling, positive, beloved figure. Hell, IMO having watched them both he's a clear notch below Manny, another PR disaster. It seems to make all the difference in the world. Just spin and flip whatever argument you want to make to justify the result.

It certainly seems to make all the difference in the world, looking at the present dataset. I think this is a marked shift from how Hall voting has worked before (what unlikable player before recent voting has been kept out of the Hall because he isn't very likable? Dick Allen has an argument for this. I really can't think of another example myself, there may be one). Further, it seems more than 'normal likability', as it is Ortiz being forgiven and literally every other 'confirmed user' being punished. It's an astounding double standard for one man and one man only. If Ortiz is put in, a whole lot of other guys have to be put in too.

[Peter_Spaeth]

It may be why Dick Allen didn't make it but hard to prove because performance wise he's fairly borderline. I can't think of another example.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It may be why Dick Allen didn't make it but hard to prove because performance wise he's fairly borderline. I can't think of another example.

I've come around to the Pro-Allen camp on the strength of his rate stats and adjusted to context figures. His counting stats, what the voters were using for most of his candidacies, are not very good (well, not very good from a hall of fame standard) and similar to many players not in the hall of fame. Difficult to discern if this is why, or if his attitude problems were a deciding factor. I suspect he will make it next time the committee meets.