Do you think there will ever be a unanimously elected candidate to the Hall of Fame?

Question

I find it surprising that of all the greats to play the game, no one has been elected unanimously. I also find it surprising that Tom Seaver has the all-time highest Hall of Fame vote percentage(98.84). There's no doubt that Seaver belongs in the Hall, but he would not have been among my top ten guesses of players who got the highest vote percentage ever had I not seen Baseball's Digest's list in a recent issue.

Answer 1

Some of these writers deliberately do not vote for them so they won't get an unanimous vote. How stupid.

Answer 2

Various reasons; for instance, the First Class was probably not elected unanimously because there were DOZENS of worthy candidates. This was, after all, the FIRST class. Anyone who had ever played baseball before 1936 was eligible. Since then, a lot of 'Well, if Ruth didn't get unanimous...' has occured. In fact, that is likely the main reason. However, there are others: Depending on the year, there could be MANY Hall-worthy candidates on the ballot, depending on who retired when, and if voters voted for X the year before... Then, there is the fact that some voters don't like to vote for that many candidates all at once, or they feel that 'X is a HOFer, but shouldn't get in before W', or feel 'X is OBVIOUS, he's getting in no matter what, but there are 10 OTHER guys who need my vote more!' or other reasons.

Answer 3

When a writer leaves a player off the ballot, that doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't think he's a hall of famer. For one, like others said, there are some people who never vote for anyone on their first ballot. Others might look at a player and say, "he's a Hall of Famer, but not a first ballot Hall of Famer" (like it or not, there's a special distinction to being a first ballot HOFer). And yet others, knowing that the player already has well over 75% of the vote anywa, might not vote for a player simply out of spite because he didn't like the guy or something.

As far as Seaver goes, look at his numbers. He's almost never had a bad year, and has had several outstanding ones. Being at least "good", usually "great" and sometimes "amazing" is -extremely- difficult for a pitcher to do for nearly 2 decades. Bob Gibson didn't do that, and even Carlton had several really bad seasons.

To put things in perspective, NO ONE in baseball history who pitched after 1930 had as low a career ERA as Seaver in as many innings pitched. In fact, he is arguably the best righthanded pitcher in the National League since Christy Mathewson, and possibly the best righthanded pitcher ever in the 60 or so years between Walter Johnson and Roger Clemens (who I think is most likely to break Seaver's vote record).

Answer 4

The consensus is pretty unanimous. The writers are the high priests of the game and according to them, if Ruth and Cobb and those guys didn't get 100% of the vote, no one will. But get this: the player with the highest percentage of votes all time is TOM SEAVER!!!! He wasn't even the best pitcher of his day! But, in the writers' defense, he was white, good looking, good for a story on an off day, and personable. That makes him the greatest player of all time. Don't you see? Tom Seaver is the greatest player of all time. Well, isn't that special.

Answer 5

Ripken didn't get unanimity, and the only other possible candidate I can foresee even remotely possible is Clemens.

I think it is better that there never is a 100% ballot return from the writers anyway. It works better as an unattainable goal than as an unmatchable standard, if anyone ever should turn the trick.

Answer 6

No. If Seaver, Nolan Ryan and Cal Ripken werent unanimous, I don't know what it would take. Some sportswriters just don't vote anyone in on the first ballot no matter what.

Answer 7

It would have to be someone with overwhelming credentials, and someone who comes along in a relatively weak year. If we could forget steroids for a minute, try a Barry Bonds type of player. He certainly has the credentials on a statistical level. If the cementheads who don't vote for players for the first time drop out, and I would bet these are older voters, then someone like Bonds might hit 100 percent.

But, boy, if someone couldn't vote for a Ripken the first time...

Answer 8

I agree with the other comments. If the grumpy old men who did not vote for Cal Ripken retire, there could well be a unanimous first ballot entry. It won't be Barry Bonds, that we know.

Answer 9

Baseball writers are an arrogant bunch. If a player ever 'displeased' them during their career, the writers never forget it. Willie Mays and Hank Aaron weren't even close to 100%. Some of that may well have been racism, too.

Answer 10

they would have to be forced to vote for the person like say if they found out Roger Clemens was gay they couldnt vote against him because they would be called out
Other than that those asshole sportswriters think no one should be unanimously elected