Frank up to 89.1% with 16% of the votes accounted for. I know it won't happen, but it would be awesome to see him crack 90%.

Thomas now with 81 votes out of 91 ballots, good for 89.1%

 

Any stats geeks out there who can give a confidence number based on the 569 ballots cast last year?

Any stats geeks out there who can give a confidence number based on the 569 ballots cast last year?

 

It's really hard to apply any statistical significance to this type of thing. If you were talking about a random lot. Say how many bad parts a company manufactured out of 569, we would already have enough data at just 16% to make a fairly accurate call. The problem here is that you're dealing with humans. There are so many old crotchety guys that have hall of fame votes that a) will not publish them and b) are the guys that would have a vendetta against steroid guys/DH/whatever the hell is they have issues with. That gizmo has shown to be accurate within around 10% in past years, so I would say it's looking pretty good for Frank.

Edited December 31, 201312 yr by lasttriptotulsa

It's really hard to apply any statistical significance to this type of thing. If you were talking about a random lot. Say how many bad parts a company manufactured out of 569, we would already have enough data at just 16% to make a fairly accurate call. The problem here is that you're dealing with humans. There are so many old crotchety guys that have hall of fame votes that a) will not publish them and b) are the guys that would have a vendetta against steroid guys/DH/whatever the hell is they have issues with. That gizmo has shown to be accurate within around 10% in past years, so I would say it's looking pretty good for Frank.

 

As lastriptotulsa said, it's a question of representiveness, not sample size, so it complicates things.

It's really hard to apply any statistical significance to this type of thing. If you were talking about a random lot. Say how many bad parts a company manufactured out of 569, we would already have enough data at just 16% to make a fairly accurate call. The problem here is that you're dealing with humans. There are so many old crotchety guys that have hall of fame votes that a) will not publish them and b) are the guys that would have a vendetta against steroid guys/DH/whatever the hell is they have issues with. That gizmo has shown to be accurate within around 10% in past years, so I would say it's looking pretty good for Frank.

 

Throw out all of that. I am curious what the confidence level of hitting 75% for having 89% at this point is.

Throw out all of that. I am curious what the confidence level of hitting 75% for having 89% at this point is.

That's his point. It's impossible to say unless you can say with certainty how representative the early voting group is of the whole group, and we have no idea how that stands up historically.

 

However, he only needs 72.3% of the remaining votes, if that helps.

That's his point. It's impossible to say unless you can say with certainty how representative the early voting group is of the whole group, and we have no idea how that stands up historically.

 

However, he only needs 72.3% of the remaining votes, if that helps.

 

You guys are way overthinking what I am asking. I'm not making this complicated on purpose.

I would imagine the Maddux/Glavine/Thomas types will get fewer votes than what ThinkFactory reflects while the Clemens/Bonds types will get more. Just have to think of what types of votes would make a writer more likely to conceal their choices so as to avoid a bunch of abuse.

The interesting one is Piazza. He is right on the doorstep.

 

It will be an absolute joke if Piazza gets in and Bonds doesn't. Then again, it's a joke that Bonds isn't in at all, but that's another discussion for another day.

Thomas now with 81 votes out of 91 ballots, good for 89.1%

 

Link?

Link?

 

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsst...ollecting_gizmo

98 ballots reported, Frank is at 89.8% or 88 votes. We sit at 17.2% of last years vote.

It's going to be a loooong ceremony this year.

 

I think they're up to 100 ballots and Frank is on 90 of them.

Edited January 2, 201412 yr by flavum

Frank Thomas is up to 90% with 101 ballots being reported. Remember 569 were turned in last year.

I'm pleasantly surprised that Frank's chances are looking so good for this year. It seems all of the ballot-clogging and Jack Morris-ing and PED-use issues have sucked up all the vitriol that I expected would be used on the DH issue. It seems Frank is quietly floating in with almost no discussion.

Joe Posnanski's Blog.

 

http://joeposnanski.com/joeblogs/the-massi...l-of-fame-post/

 

I don't agree with everything, but if I had a vote, I might actually come up with the same 10.

Frank---94/104

 

Not sure if this is a bold prediction, but I could see Biggio fall under 75%. I definitely think Piazza stays under 75%

 

100 - Maddux

97.1 - Glavine

90.4 - F. Thomas

80.8 - Biggio

———————————

73.1 - Piazza

66.3 - Bagwell

60.1 - Morris

56.7 - Raines

45.2 - Bonds

44.2 - Clemens

39.4 - Schilling

35.6 - Mussina

23.1 - Trammell

19.2 - L. Smith

19.2 - E. Martinez

15.4 - McGriff

13.5 - Kent

11.5 - L. Walker

10.6 - McGwire

8.7 - S. Sosa

7.7 - R. Palmeiro

Thomas now 97 of 107, 90.7%.

He needs about 426 out of 567 to get elected. At this juncture, he needs 329 out of the next 460. That's 71.5%.

 

Baby steps.

99/109 for Thomas. He's getting in. Voters were more than happy to get three no-brainer candidates without ties to roids.

 

Interesting, next year is Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, and John Smoltz (with Sheffield). So the same thing may happen next year.

 

100 - Maddux

97.2 - Glavine

90.8 - F. Thomas

80.7 - Biggio

———————————

73.4 - Piazza

66.1 - Bagwell

60.6 - Morris

56.0 - Raines

46.8 - Bonds

45.9 - Clemens

39.4 - Schilling

33.9 - Mussina

22.9 - Trammell

20.2 - E. Martinez

18.3 - L. Smith

14.7 - McGriff

13.8 - Kent

11.0 - L. Walker

11.0 - McGwire

8.3 - S. Sosa

7.3 - R. Palmeiro

He needs about 426 out of 567 to get elected. At this juncture, he needs 329 out of the next 460. That's 71.5%.

 

Baby steps.

 

Considering that mostly old farts are the ones who haven't disclosed their ballots, that number doesn't make me extremely confident yet.

study showing how close the BBTF is on its ballot predictor.

 

http://www.baseballnation.com/2014/1/2/526...-of-fame-ballot

Thomas-less ballot:

 

https://twitter.com/RRepoz/status/419252914310217728

 

Turned in a ballot with 9 names. No room for Frank.

 

Old guy, by the way. Retired a few years ago.

 

As far as I can tell, Frank is at 101/112- 90.2%

Edited January 3, 201412 yr by flavum

Thomas-less ballot:

 

https://twitter.com/RRepoz/status/419252914310217728

 

Turned in a ballot with 9 names. No room for Frank.

 

Old guy, by the way. Retired a few years ago.

 

As far as I can tell, Frank is at 101/112- 90.2%

If this is the Gary Brown referred to in the twitter link , what did he ever do to deserve a ballot in the first place? Lol

http://m.bbref.com/m?p=XXminorsXXplayer.cgiQQid=brown-001gar

Edited January 4, 201412 yr by StRoostifer

If this is the Gary Brown referred to in the twitter link , what did he ever do to deserve a ballot in the first place? Lol

http://m.bbref.com/m?p=XXminorsXXplayer.cgiQQid=brown-001gar

 

It's Garry Brown.

 

http://connect.masslive.com/user/gbrown413/posts.html

 

Been in the BBWAA since 1977.

Edited January 4, 201412 yr by flavum