Skip to content

Hall of Fame voters — some of them anyway — reveal their ballots

Jan 10, 2014, 11:32 AM EDT

bbwaa logo

Something actually good from the BBWAA today: the actual ballots of voters revealed. Some of them anyway. One hundred thirty-six voters chose to make theirs public, and there they are.

It’s sortable and searchable. Have fun, kids.

  1. alang3131982 - Jan 10, 2014 at 11:41 AM

    Someone voted for Hideo Nomo and three others. Not Greg Maddux. he had 6 empty spots. my lord

    • 18thstreet - Jan 10, 2014 at 11:48 AM

      Can we make a habit of naming names? That person was Lawrence Rocca, who is listed as “Honorary.”

      I believe this is his LinkedIn page: He is currently Director of Development and Alumni Affairs at the Georgetown Preparatory School. His email is

      • paperlions - Jan 10, 2014 at 2:03 PM

        This must be the kind of thing Passan was referring to when he said that over 100 voting members are not qualified to do so.

      • natstowngreg - Jan 10, 2014 at 6:14 PM

        Just for the heckuva it, I Googled this guy and found the following. Has to be the most extreme, blanket condemnation of Steroids Era players I’ve seen.

      • 18thstreet - Jan 10, 2014 at 7:10 PM

        You know, there were hundreds of players who played during segregated times. And, to my knowledge, not one of them took a stance against segregated baseball, even though it would have been an honorable thing to do.

        Sure, DiMaggio was great. But he never spoke out against whites-only baseball! The whole era is tainted. No, wait — that only applies to steroids.

      • 18thstreet - Jan 10, 2014 at 8:22 PM

        It gets worse:


    • umrguy42 - Jan 10, 2014 at 1:36 PM

      Yeah, agree or disagree with Jack Morris on there, that vote is totally “One of these things doesn’t belong here, one of these things isn’t the same…”

    • joecool16280 - Jan 10, 2014 at 5:19 PM

      Apparently some voters like to make a joke out of it.

      Not sure if this has anything to do with it but I’m really looking forward to a new commissioner. Baseball, in general, is failing to keep up with with the changes of society. I’m afraid to see where the sport is in 15-20 years if they keep it up.

  2. 2077james - Jan 10, 2014 at 11:42 AM

    Firstly, why aren’t they all made public?

    Secondly, Lawrence Rocca: Morris Nomo Raines Trammell. WTF??!

    • jeffchadwick - Jan 10, 2014 at 11:43 AM

      Raines and Trammell are perfectly deserving, so it’s only half WTF.

      • 2077james - Jan 10, 2014 at 11:46 AM

        Fair enough. The WTF was mainly for the absence of Maddux and only 4 picks on a loaded ballot.

  3. Ayana Rashed - Jan 10, 2014 at 11:44 AM

    Reblogged this on Imarashed.

    • asimonetti88 - Jan 10, 2014 at 4:18 PM

      Has anyone actually gone to this site?

      • raysfan1 - Jan 10, 2014 at 8:22 PM


  4. churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 10, 2014 at 11:49 AM

    going to mess around with this some more, but here’s a spreadsheet of ’13 votes and ’14 votes sorted by writer:

  5. greej1938l - Jan 10, 2014 at 11:52 AM


  6. 18thstreet - Jan 10, 2014 at 11:56 AM

    Mark Purdy of the San Jose Mercury News vote for Biggio, Morris, Raines and Smith in 2013. A year later, he voted for Glavine, Maddux, Smith and Thomas.

    His email address

    • 18thstreet - Jan 10, 2014 at 11:58 AM

      “I vote for 3 or 4 best on ballot each yr. Respect others w/different philosophy.”

      He’s making up his own rules.

      • largebill - Jan 10, 2014 at 12:26 PM

        I went back and forth with him over this a few days ago. Could not get him to understand that each year is different. There may be years where only one player (or even none) jumps out as deserving. While in other years like this one you should struggle to narrow down to 10 names.

      • NatsLady - Jan 10, 2014 at 12:37 PM

        I understand his reasoning, and a good part of me agrees with it. There were, what, 36 candidates on the ballot? He voted for more than 10% of them. He may or may not like the class presented to him, but he votes for the top guys as he sees them. Just like in an election where neither candidate is to your taste but you don’t abstain.

        You say he’s making up his own rules, but, there are no “rules”. Someone could say, I vote for the top player at each position each year, even if there are 5 great pitchers and no great shortstops. People use stats–all different kinds of stats. People use the eye test. People submit protest votes. People don’t vote for PED suspects, people DO vote for PED suspects.

        This guy votes for the best of the best as they are presented to him each year. That’s probably what I would do.

      • cohnjusack - Jan 10, 2014 at 12:38 PM


        If 5 great players all retire in 2005, only four deserve to go.
        If the 5th player instead hangs on for one more year, playing 15 games and hitting .150 before being forced out by injury, then he deserves to go.

        Makes sense to me.

      • NatsLady - Jan 10, 2014 at 12:47 PM

        Then how come no one was elected last year? Apparently, there were at least seven candidates who were worthy of election last year but weren’t elected so they reappeared this year. Not enough “struggle” last year, I guess.

      • NatsLady - Jan 10, 2014 at 12:57 PM

        @cohnjusack. I didn’t understand your hypothesis.

        Five great players retire in a certain year and only four get in. The 5th player sits on the ballot until the following year but he is the top non-HOF guy from his class.

        In the next year, he is either among the top four, or another four players who have retired get in ahead of him again and again he waits. He has fifteen years to make it to the top 3 or 4. Isn’t that the way the system is supposed to work?

        Unless there are at least four HOF-worthy candidates every year that get voted in ahead of him, he’ll get in at some point. Yes, there is a certain amount of “luck” involved, in that he could have retired in a weak year, since when have we eliminated luck from the game?

        Guy sounds marginal to me anyway. I’m a “small hall” type person, since there is also a museum and a

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 10, 2014 at 1:45 PM

        I understand his reasoning, and a good part of me agrees with it

        First HoF class was Ruth, Cobb, Walter Johnson, Wagner and Christy Mathewson. Which would you have not elected based on the top 3 or 4?

        Just because there’s many players on the ballot doesn’t mean they aren’t qualified. This year alone you had one of the best RHP ever in Maddux, one of the best pitchers ever in Clemens, one of the best players ever in Bonds, which doesn’t even include one of the best hitters ever (Thomas), one of the best 1b ever (Bagwell), and so on.

        Isn’t that the way the system is supposed to work?

        I thought the system was supposed to elect qualified players to the HoF, not put an arbitrary amount on how many could enter, or on a specific year (first ballot or not).

      • paperlions - Jan 10, 2014 at 2:15 PM

        The main reason it is a horribly flawed (and yes, illogical) rule Purdy follows is that it is a vote of 500+ people. If everyone followed Purdy’s illogical process, then years like this year and next year would result in 3 or 4 guys being elected and nearly everyone else falling off of the ballot. This year, everyone would have voted for Maddux, Glavine, and Thomas…with probably a great deal of disagreement about who the 4th candidate (if any) would be. So the most you could ever hold over would be 1 or 2 candidates.

      • joecool16280 - Jan 10, 2014 at 4:57 PM

        He’s a hack. Grew up in SJ and always wondered how this guy kept his job. His articles are not interesting whatsoever.

      • daveitsgood - Jan 10, 2014 at 5:44 PM

        @ Natslady – The problem with that is if you don’t feel there are any great candidates in one year of balloting, you don’t have to vote. The problem with Purdy is that he puts an arbitrary number of 3-4 “best” thinking that each year is mutually exclusive from the years previous. The problem I have with this from the logical perspective is that the HOF doesn’t have a tiering system. If he voted for Biggio in 2013, it was because he felt Biggio was a HOFer and then to not vote for him the following year because in comparison to the others on the ballot he’s not. He either is or isn’t a HOFer. Purdy isn’t arguing that he changed his mind on Biggio being a HOFer, he’s arbitrarily ranking levels of HOFer by stacking Maddux, Glavine and Thomas into the imposed limit of 3 people and still thinks Biggio is a HOFer, just not in comparison to those 3 and doesn’t want a large amount of candidates making it in each year.Maybe next year or the year after, he will compare the Biggio to the other candidates on the Ballot and feel he is a top 3 candidate. That’s the part that bothers me. It’s a complete logic fail

  7. savocabol1 - Jan 10, 2014 at 12:24 PM

    If there are all these names that clearly shouldnt show up on anyones ballot, then why the hell are they an option to begin with?

    • billyboots - Jan 10, 2014 at 12:38 PM

      Because they met the minimum requirements to be on the ballot.

    • raysfan1 - Jan 10, 2014 at 8:35 PM

      The Hall sets eligibility requirements. It does not make judgments on a player’s worthiness; that’s the voters’ job.
      From its website:
      “3. Eligible Candidates — Candidates to be eligible must meet the following requirements:

      A. A baseball player must have been active as a player in the Major Leagues at some time during a period beginning twenty (20) years before and ending five (5) years prior to election.

      B. Player must have played in each of ten (10) Major League championship seasons, some part of which must have been within the period described in 3 (A).

      C. Player shall have ceased to be an active player in the Major Leagues at least five (5) calendar years preceding the election but may be otherwise connected with baseball.

      D. In case of the death of an active player or a player who has been retired for less than five (5) full years, a candidate who is otherwise eligible shall be eligible in the next regular election held at least six (6) months after the date of death or after the end of the five (5) year period, whichever occurs first.

      E. Any player on Baseball’s ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate.”

  8. sandwiches4ever - Jan 10, 2014 at 12:28 PM

    Steve Marcus: Maddux Morris Thomas. So the only player you choose besides the obvious no brainers is Morris? Yeah, there’s a good reason you work for Newsday.

    Also, hilarity is truly Murray Chass’ listed publication affiliation.

    • braxtonrob - Jan 11, 2014 at 4:29 AM

      Murray Chass says he can’t understand why (his guy) Lee Smith dropped so significantly in voting this year. What a moron.
      Allow me to explain the obvious to you Murray, in summary: YOU are the reason your own guy lost approximately 100 votes … because you don’t vote for 10 (worthy) candidates.
      So idiotic ballots like yours, (like only 4 votes), keep the 4th, 5th and 6th highest vote getters from getting in, subsequently EVERYONE stays on the ballot year after ridiculous year.
      The writers who DO know how to vote (10 each year) have to drop off worthy candidates every year now. And why do they have to do this? Because you’re a MORON.
      [I swear some of these fools (writers) should have to take a college stats class and if, I mean when, they fail, should be suspended from voting.]

  9. billyboots - Jan 10, 2014 at 12:40 PM

    This is a serious question: Why are there so many “honorary” voters? Are they simply retired beat writers?

    • po8crg - Jan 10, 2014 at 1:25 PM

      Yes. Hon members of the BBWAA are people who are not currently writing professionally about baseball, but did so for at least ten years. Active members pay dues, and get a card that gets them into the press box at games.

  10. scoutsaysweitersisabust - Jan 10, 2014 at 12:49 PM

    Looking over this list, I’m nearly brought to tears that it’s LeBatard that was the one booted from voting. I can’t imagine what the ballots that WEREN’T released look like. Hilarous that the first name I searched for was Lebatard. “Match not found”

    Lawrence Rocca Honorary Morris Nomo Raines Trammell 4

    Sir, please go take 4 steps off a 3 step pier.

    • crackersnap - Jan 10, 2014 at 1:30 PM

      That would be this Larry Rocca:

    • CJ - Jan 10, 2014 at 4:22 PM

      This gives me an idea….

      Dear Deadspin, please acquire 2 votes next year and then publicly announce they were Murray Chass’s and Lawrence Rocca’s.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 10, 2014 at 5:05 PM

        You mean Noted-Blogger-Murray-Chass, right?

  11. RoyHobbs39 - Jan 10, 2014 at 1:37 PM

    Here is Rocca’s reasoning. Oddly, it also seems more like support of why his membership should be taken away.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 10, 2014 at 1:51 PM

      His reasoning makes sense until he votes for Nomo. It’s the problem many of us have pointed out for years. Come up with a reasoning and stick to it. If he’s not going to vote for anyone who played in the “steroid era”, then fine. I don’t agree, but stick to it. Once you start making excuses (naivete on Nomo), then you open up pandora’s box.

      • braxtonrob - Jan 11, 2014 at 4:52 AM

        Rocca’s a top-flight idiot but Nomo had 200 Wins with 3,000 SO’s if you had his Japanese League stats. I wouldn’t necessarily vote for Nomo but I respect the NPB, Japan’s WBC results, and the writers who use that as a factor in their voting.
        (Hideki Matsui will test the value of a career ½ spend in Japan, in 2018)

    • mpl13 - Jan 10, 2014 at 2:26 PM

      If that is his reasoning, shouldn’t he have been pushing hard for Frank Thomas? Thomas publicly called for testing in 1995, was the only active player to volunteer an interview for the Mitchell report, and spoke out against steroids in front of congress. I would think Thomas’ record deserves the benefit of the doubt more than Nomo’s.

      • unclemosesgreen - Jan 10, 2014 at 3:32 PM

        Now now – you’re trying to make sense. You’re barking up the wrong tree entirely to explain this ballot.

  12. joecool16280 - Jan 10, 2014 at 5:00 PM

    Interesting how two SF Chronicle writers didn’t vote for Bonds…weak. He did things that were unthinkable when the majority of the league was juicing.

    Seems like they’re holding a grudge because he wasn’t the nicest person to deal with and thats pretty unprofessional.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 10, 2014 at 5:07 PM

      He did things that were unthinkable when the majority of the league was juicing.

      Like this?

      Btw, I miss Bob Sheppard 😦

      • joecool16280 - Jan 10, 2014 at 5:14 PM


  13. daveitsgood - Jan 10, 2014 at 6:25 PM

    Just when I think you can’t possibly get any dumber, you go and do something like this….

    My definition of USA president is top guy on ballot vs. opposition;same with top 4 in HoF. @reeoni72 Your HoF definition is top 4 on ballot?— Mark Purdy (@MercPurdy) January 10, 2014

    And completely redeem yourself!

  14. moogro - Jan 10, 2014 at 7:17 PM

    Just skimming, but how do you not vote for 10? There’s a lot of people that didn’t.

    Who is this guy?

    Lawrence Rocca Honorary Morris Nomo Raines Trammell 4

    That’s pretty silly.

  15. braxtonrob - Jan 11, 2014 at 12:15 AM

    Awesome! Transparency!

    Now I can separate the stupid from the senile. :)

    P.s. If you’re ballot doesn’t have at least 10 on it, you are (in my book) one of the above.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. J. Baez (2263)
  2. B. Crawford (2227)
  3. H. Pence (2184)
  4. B. Harper (2107)
  5. C. Seager (1969)