Baseball Hall of Fame, 2014

[JasonEvans]

Ballots are due today. Results will be announced in a week. Here is a good article talking about this year's best candidates. It suggests Maddux and Glavine are the most likely to make it.

I have to agree with those two fro sure. The article makes a great point about the stuff Glavine did away from the field which is quite impressive. I am not sure who else my ballot this year would also include but Biggio and Bagwell sure make sense. I'd probably vote for some of the steroid cheats, especially Bonds who was a HOFer before he started juicing. McGwire and Sosa would not get my vote. Clements probably would. I'd have trouble keeping my ballot to only 10 names, that's for sure.

-Jason "amazing year for the HOF ballot -- probably the best ever" Evans

[Blue in the Face]

Frank Thomas will get in also (not sure how he doesn't even rate a mention in that article). Biggio, Bagwell and Piazza will be close, and will go in either this year or next year. Tim Raines will continue to be deeply underappreciated.

[weezie]

Pretty sure Tram and Morris won't get it, just because neither is a sexy pick, meaning they aren't favs of the writers.

[Olympic Fan]

I read a pretty informed article (sorry I can't remember the link) that suggested that Maddox would be the only player elected this year.

That's pretty ridiculous, if he's right.

Agree that Glavine and Frank Thomas should be locks among the first timers. Bagwell, Biggio, Piazza and Jack Morris would get my vote from the holdovers, along with Tim Raines, who has become the most underrated player in baseball history.

I would not vote for any of the cheaters. Jason, you suggest that Bonds was a HOF quality player before he cheated ... yeah, and so were Joe Jackson before he took money to throw the World Series and Pete Rose before he bet on baseball. A cheater is a cheater is a cheater.

Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, McGuire, Palmerio and (eventually) A-Roid and Ortiz can wait forever IMHO (in this case, the H stands for harsh, not humble).

PS: I know there are PED suspicions about Bagwell and Piazza, but I've never seen any convincing evidence with either. I hate that careers have been smeared because those cheats have sold the fiction that "everybody did it" (the best evidence is that only 15 percent of ML players were doping at the height of the PED era). I even read a commentator suggest that Thomas must have cheated because he was so big and strong -- when Thomas was a crusader for testing because he hated competing against the guys who did cheat.

[dball]

I would not vote for any of the cheaters. Jason, you suggest that Bonds was a HOF quality player before he cheated ... yeah, and so were Joe Jackson before he took money to throw the World Series and Pete Rose before he bet on baseball. A cheater is a cheater is a cheater.
.

Poor ole Joe. Not sure he should be included in the above. There seems to be some doubt as to his guilt. If he did take money to throw the series, he did a terrible job at it: series record 12 hits, .375 average (tops for both squads), no errors and threw out a guy at the plate.

[Olympic Fan]

Poor ole Joe. Not sure he should be included in the above. There seems to be some doubt as to his guilt. If he did take money to throw the series, he did a terrible job at it: series record 12 hits, .375 average (tops for both squads), no errors and threw out a guy at the plate.

While there have always been deniers who have tried to whitewash Jackson's involvement in the fix, the weight of the evidence in strongly against him.

It's about as certain as a fact can be that Jackson accepted $5,000 from the gamblers to throw the series ... he was actually supposed to get $20,000, but the gamblers shortchanged him and the other six players in on the fix (the eighth player banned for the fix was Buck Weaver, who knew about the fix and refused to participate ... but was banned for not reporting it).

Jackson signed a confession, admitting to receiving the money. He later repudiated the confession (saying he was conned by his lawyer) then still later changed his story and admitted he got the money, but tried to give it back. Testimony from the other players confirmed that he got the money from first baseman Chick Gandil.

The evidence is overwhelming that Jackson took money to throw the world series.

Did he do anything to earn that money? On this point, the evidence is much less clear.

On one hand, he did post those gaudy batting numbers that you cite -- although his ups and downs in the series curiously coincided with the games the Black Sox were trying to throw and the games they were trying to win (because the news of the fix was so widespread, the cheaters couldn't lay money on the Reds and the White Sox had to try and win certain games to balance the odds. That's how Dickie Kerr became a hero .. he happened to pitch and win two games the fixers were trying to win).

Still, it's possible Jackson played it straight and only screwed the bookies who paid him.

On the other hand, Hugh Fullerton, the Chicago journalist who eventually exposed the fix, went until the series looking for suspicious play. He sat beside Christy Mathewson, the HOF pitcher, who had quit as manager of the Reds when management refused to get rid of Hal Chase, the most blatant fixer who ever played the game. Chase moved on soon after (to the Giants) and amazingly the Reds won a pennant. The Giants slumped with him, but immediately after dumping Chase they won three straight pennants.

As I said, Fullerton and Mathewson charted suspicious plays. They cited three Jackson plays in the outfield -- including a play in the first inning of the first game. Rath was on third (after being hit by Cicotte -- a signal that the fix was on) and when Heinie Groh lofted a fly to left, Jackson didn't even try and cut off the run at the plate -- Eddie Collins, who was not in on the fix, was furious at Jackson for not throwing to the plate.

I can't remember the other questionable plays, except remember the line in field of dreams when Costner says "his glove was the place where triples go to die" ... well, the Reds hit seven triples in the series -- five of them to left field, the hardest place to hit a triple. At least one was a ground rule triple into the overflow crowd, but Dutch Reuther's triple in the fourth inning of Game One -- the hit that broke the game open -- was to left and was another play Fullerton and Mathewson questioned.

I know that Cicotte, one of two pitchers in on the fix, later complained that the other players who concerned with protecting their batting averages and forced he and Horse Williams to throw the games with little help. Gandil, who was at the center of everything, drove in the tying run in Game One. Does that mean he was innocent too?

Finally, in 2002, Commissioner Bud Selig commissioned Chicago sports writer Jerome Holtzman to investigate the Jackson case and write a report arguing for or against Jackson's reinstatement. Holtzman was widely known to be a Jackson advocate and most of his colleagues expected a report exonerating the tarnished star. But Holtzman was an honest man and once he really looked at the evidence, he had to write a report that did NOT suggest his reinstatement.

I know that Jackson will always have his defenders (just as Bonds, Clemens and the modern cheaters do), but I believe the evidence is conclusive that he took money to throw the series ... and convincing that he acted to earn that money -- despite his batting average.

[jjasper0729]

While there have always been deniers who have tried to whitewash Jackson's involvement in the fix, the weight of the evidence in strongly against him.

It's about as certain as a fact can be that Jackson accepted $5,000 from the gamblers to throw the series ... he was actually supposed to get $20,000, but the gamblers shortchanged him and the other six players in on the fix (the eighth player banned for the fix was Buck Weaver, who knew about the fix and refused to participate ... but was banned for not reporting it).

Jackson signed a confession, admitting to receiving the money. He later repudiated the confession (saying he was conned by his lawyer) then still later changed his story and admitted he got the money, but tried to give it back. Testimony from the other players confirmed that he got the money from first baseman Chick Gandil.

The evidence is overwhelming that Jackson took money to throw the world series.

Did he do anything to earn that money? On this point, the evidence is much less clear.

On one hand, he did post those gaudy batting numbers that you cite -- although his ups and downs in the series curiously coincided with the games the Black Sox were trying to throw and the games they were trying to win (because the news of the fix was so widespread, the cheaters couldn't lay money on the Reds and the White Sox had to try and win certain games to balance the odds. That's how Dickie Kerr became a hero .. he happened to pitch and win two games the fixers were trying to win).

Still, it's possible Jackson played it straight and only screwed the bookies who paid him.

On the other hand, Hugh Fullerton, the Chicago journalist who eventually exposed the fix, went until the series looking for suspicious play. He sat beside Christy Mathewson, the HOF pitcher, who had quit as manager of the Reds when management refused to get rid of Hal Chase, the most blatant fixer who ever played the game. Chase moved on soon after (to the Giants) and amazingly the Reds won a pennant. The Giants slumped with him, but immediately after dumping Chase they won three straight pennants.

As I said, Fullerton and Mathewson charted suspicious plays. They cited three Jackson plays in the outfield -- including a play in the first inning of the first game. Rath was on third (after being hit by Cicotte -- a signal that the fix was on) and when Heinie Groh lofted a fly to left, Jackson didn't even try and cut off the run at the plate -- Eddie Collins, who was not in on the fix, was furious at Jackson for not throwing to the plate.

I can't remember the other questionable plays, except remember the line in field of dreams when Costner says "his glove was the place where triples go to die" ... well, the Reds hit seven triples in the series -- five of them to left field, the hardest place to hit a triple. At least one was a ground rule triple into the overflow crowd, but Dutch Reuther's triple in the fourth inning of Game One -- the hit that broke the game open -- was to left and was another play Fullerton and Mathewson questioned.

I know that Cicotte, one of two pitchers in on the fix, later complained that the other players who concerned with protecting their batting averages and forced he and Horse Williams to throw the games with little help. Gandil, who was at the center of everything, drove in the tying run in Game One. Does that mean he was innocent too?

Finally, in 2002, Commissioner Bud Selig commissioned Chicago sports writer Jerome Holtzman to investigate the Jackson case and write a report arguing for or against Jackson's reinstatement. Holtzman was widely known to be a Jackson advocate and most of his colleagues expected a report exonerating the tarnished star. But Holtzman was an honest man and once he really looked at the evidence, he had to write a report that did NOT suggest his reinstatement.

I know that Jackson will always have his defenders (just as Bonds, Clemens and the modern cheaters do), but I believe the evidence is conclusive that he took money to throw the series ... and convincing that he acted to earn that money -- despite his batting average.

Just to follow up on this. It's also been argued that the hits Jackson got during the series (including the home run) were at points in the games when the outcome was more or less decided so he could hit normally because it wouldn't affect the outcome.

[dball]

While there have always been deniers who have tried to whitewash Jackson's involvement in the fix, the weight of the evidence in strongly against him.

It's about as certain as a fact can be that Jackson accepted $5,000 from the gamblers to throw the series ... he was actually supposed to get $20,000, but the gamblers shortchanged him and the other six players in on the fix (the eighth player banned for the fix was Buck Weaver, who knew about the fix and refused to participate ... but was banned for not reporting it).

Jackson signed a confession, admitting to receiving the money. He later repudiated the confession (saying he was conned by his lawyer) then still later changed his story and admitted he got the money, but tried to give it back. Testimony from the other players confirmed that he got the money from first baseman Chick Gandil.

Well, Jackson got the $5000. He told the Grand Jury that. http://www.blackbetsy.com/jjtestimony1920.pdf

What he doesn't do is admit to throwing the series. For the illiterate Jackson, I think that made a difference. His family was threatened and his roommate, Lefty Williams, threw the cash on the floor of the room (not Gandil). There is some indication Jackson had refused money on at least two other occasions.

There is also some evidence to suggest he received poor legal advice. His teammates admitted Jackson never met with them on any of the confabs held to plan the fix. Lefty Williams said Jackson's name was thrown in to show the gamblers the other guys were serious about throwing the series.

As I said, Fullerton and Mathewson charted suspicious plays. They cited three Jackson plays in the outfield -- including a play in the first inning of the first game. Rath was on third (after being hit by Cicotte -- a signal that the fix was on) and when Heinie Groh lofted a fly to left, Jackson didn't even try and cut off the run at the plate -- Eddie Collins, who was not in on the fix, was furious at Jackson for not throwing to the plate.

Without questioning this account (though some do question the "didn't even try" portion), you might mention that Jackson scored the tying run the very next inning.

I can't remember the other questionable plays, except remember the line in field of dreams when Costner says "his glove was the place where triples go to die" ... well, the Reds hit seven triples in the series -- five of them to left field, the hardest place to hit a triple. At least one was a ground rule triple into the overflow crowd, but Dutch Reuther's triple in the fourth inning of Game One -- the hit that broke the game open -- was to left and was another play Fullerton and Mathewson questioned.

As far as I know, the "five triples to left field" is myth. Six of the triples were hit by left-handed batters; the seventh by the switch hitting Kopf who would have been batting right against Lefty Williams. I don't know of any contemporary accounts that list this myth; it actually appears all the triples were to right field.

I know that Jackson will always have his defenders (just as Bonds, Clemens and the modern cheaters do), but I believe the evidence is conclusive that he took money to throw the series ... and convincing that he acted to earn that money -- despite his batting average.

It doesn't appear conclusive to me. Though I don't think of myself as a defender of Joe, I do think there are few indicators he was trying to throw the series. He seems more a rube to me and as such doesn't belong in the grouping with those who cheated.

Just to follow up on this. It's also been argued that the hits Jackson got during the series (including the home run) were at points in the games when the outcome was more or less decided so he could hit normally because it wouldn't affect the outcome.

This is silly. Jackson was 3 for 4 in the 4-2 second game loss, got a double in the second of the 2-0 fourth game loss and scored the tying run (at the time) in what became the first game blowout. The homer was in the third inning of the eighth game. He also doubled and had a long out at the wall that nearly produced 3 more rbi. He didn't do anything offensively in the 5-0 fifth game loss so you can't contribute any of this hits here to after the fact.

[sagegrouse]

The Hall of Fame still requires, I believe, the votes of 75 percent of those voting. Yet the number of voters has soared immensely, making it more difficult to arrive at such a consensus. Now we have a logjam of candidates, including those with many, many records but links to steroids. Yet voters are still limited to voting for ten candidates; maybe nobody ever gets in again! All of this suggest that the voting formulas should be changed. Quite frankly, the NFL approach of selecting five players every year bears consideration, although there is no reason baseball shuld pick the same number.

I confess to having an "attitude problem" WRT the HOF: It lauds the accomplishments of Bowie Kuhn, whose unremarkable career was even further tarnished when he fled to Florida to protect his assets against a bankruptcy judgment. Then it denies admission to Kuhn's adversary and negotiating partner, Marvin Miller, the union leader who reshaped the game of baseball.

[greybeard]

Carl Furillo, should have been in decades ago.

In his 15-year career, Furillo batted .299 with 192 home runs, 1910 hits, 1058 RBI, 895 runs, 324 doubles, 56 triples, 48 stolen bases, a .458 slugging average and 514 walks for a .355 on base percentage. As an outfielder, he had 3322 putouts, 151 assists, 34 double plays and 74 errors for 3547 total chances and a .979 fielding percentage. If he had one more hit in his career, he would statistically had a .300 batting average

Furillo was a terrific clutch hitter, was said to have been the best of his time at his position, right field (not considering Clemente of "his time" although there was overlap), and had a legendary arm.

Furillo's release from the Dodgers at the beginning of the 1960 season and inability to catch on with another team is steeped in controversy. Furillo successfully sued the Dodgers for having released him to avoid a pension bump that would have come had he played a 15th season. His claim that he had been blackballed when no team picked him up went nowhere with Commissioner Ford Fricke. No Marvin Miller back then. We was robbed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Furillo.

[Olympic Fan]

Carl Furillo, should have been in decades ago.

In his 15-year career, Furillo batted .299 with 192 home runs, 1910 hits, 1058 RBI, 895 runs, 324 doubles, 56 triples, 48 stolen bases, a .458 slugging average and 514 walks for a .355 on base percentage. As an outfielder, he had 3322 putouts, 151 assists, 34 double plays and 74 errors for 3547 total chances and a .979 fielding percentage. If he had one more hit in his career, he would statistically had a .300 batting average

Furillo was a terrific clutch hitter, was said to have been the best of his time at his position, right field (not considering Clemente of "his time" although there was overlap), and had a legendary arm.

Furillo's release from the Dodgers at the beginning of the 1960 season and inability to catch on with another team is steeped in controversy. Furillo successfully sued the Dodgers for having released him to avoid a pension bump that would have come had he played a 15th season. His claim that he had been blackballed when no team picked him up went nowhere with Commissioner Ford Fricke. No Marvin Miller back then. We was robbed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Furillo.

greybeard ... haven't we debated this before?

I know you love the guy, but HOF is ridiculous. This is an outfielder with never once finished in the top 5 of the MVP vote (he had a sixth place finish which was the only top 10 finish). He played in two all-star games and never started. You list his career numbers, which are solid, but none of them is HOF worthy -- less than 2,000 hits? Less than 200 HRs? A .299 BA?

To use advanced metrics, his OPS-plus is a very mediocre (for a right fielder) 112. His career WAR is 35.0 -- which is 620th in baseball history. It's less than Curtis Granderson, Lonnie Smith, Andy Van Slyke or Carl Crawford.

When you say he was the best of his time at his position, are you sure you don't mean the "best defensively" -- which he might have been? But if he were the best RFer of his time, you think he might have started an all-star game? He overlapped most of his career (and almost all of his best years) with a NL rightfielder named Hank Aaron. Guys like Enos Slaughter, Hank Sauer and Del Ennis started All-star Games ahead of him.

While there may have been controversy about his release in 1960, it's not like he was robbed a significant portion of his career. He was 38 years old -- the 10th oldest player in baseball when the season started.

Furillo was a nice player -- a great defensive outfielder with a so-so bat -- on a very popular team (but one that won just one world champion ship in his era). But Furillo was at best the sixth best player on that team (after Jackie and Campy, Snider and Pee Wee and Hodges). There's a reason that he never got more than 2 percent of the vote when he was on the HOF ballot.

[brevity]

greybeard ... haven't we debated this before?

Good memory. More than once: June 2007 and January 2008. greybeard has also brought up Furillo on May 2007, January 2010, and June 2012.

I have no opinion on this, other than to say that I can't remember what I said 6 days ago, much less 6 years ago.*

*Oh wait, I can. It was something like, "Why are all those 300-pound Texas A&M linemen listening to that 14-year-old boy throw a hissy fit?"

[JasonEvans]

Well, any chance of Greg Maddux being the first ever unanimous HOF member has died. Some genius at MLB.com has revealed his ballot and it does not include Maddux. In fact, Ken Gurnick has voted for only one player from the 2014 HOF class, Jack Morris. Grunick says he refuses to vote for anyone who played in the "steroid era."

Well, that makes a ton of sense. Lots of guys were cheating so lets penalize everyone, even the guys who did not cheat. I have never heard anyone accuse Maddux of steroid use and there is nothing in his career that would indicate he took any performance enhancing drugs. He was never a power-pitcher, always relying on location, movement, and change of speeds to get batters out. He was a brilliant fielder of his position too.

The idea that a voter would ignore everyone from a 10-15 year stretch of baseball is ludicrous and insulting to the Hall voting process. What's more, as the linked article above indicates, if you think the "steroid era" did not begin until the mid-90s (which most everyone would agree upon) then Maddux was already HOF worthy from his pitching in the late 80s until the mid-90s. By 1995 he had 4 Cy Young awards, 6 golden gloves, and a slew of other HOF-worthy stats. Ridiculous!

Look, I don't know if Maddux is the greatest pitcher of all time and worthy of being the first unanimous player, but at least come up with a reasonable reason not to vote for him. I think I would be happier with the old-school lunatics who merely say they refuse to vote for any first-timer on the ballot out of some misguided tradition than I would with Gurnick's idiotic "I'm not voting for anyone who played from 1996-2008" (or whatever timespan you think the "steroid era" consists of).

-Jason "Twitter is ripping Gurnick a new one... I'm going to join the fun!" Evans

[throatybeard]

I read a pretty informed article (sorry I can't remember the link) that suggested that Maddox would be the only player elected this year.

I'm far more interested to see what happens with Maddux.

Here's a nice appreciation of Maddux and Glavine by Tim Kurkjian.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10...-fame-together

[JasonEvans]

I'm far more interested to see what happens with Maddux.

Here's a nice appreciation of Maddux and Glavine by Tim Kurkjian.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10...-fame-together

What a great, great article. Really lets you appreciate the effort and professionalism that went into their craft.

Best line--

Maddux and Glavine were so perceptive, they knew their pitch counts as the game wore on.

"Maddux came in after the sixth inning once and said, 'Leo, where am I on the [pitch] counter? 66 pitches, right?'" Mazzone said. "I said, '64.' And he said, 'Well, you missed two.'"

-Jason "Tommy better make it this year so he can go in with Greg. I predict Maddux will get about 98% of the vote and Tommy will be around 85%" Evans

[Mal]

That is, indeed, ridiculous, JE. Grunick (along with plenty of others) should have his vote taken away. I've railed about this ad nauseum in the past, but my pet theory is that there should be some sort of metric that enforces a higher level of homogeneity in the voting. Because with so many voters these days, the idiosyncracies are way out of hand. If x players are inducted over a 5 year period, and you voted for less than .6x or more than 2x, for instance, you're stripped of your vote. Unintended consequence could be that they all just vote for no one, but I'd imagine some conformity would start to take hold and these idiots with their imagined brave self-martyring protest stands would stop trying to put the spotlight on themselves instead of the players.

It always comes back to the basic problem of baseball's HOF: its members are chosen exclusively by sportswriters (other than the makeup call outlet of the Veteran's Committee). Terrible idea on many levels. [Apologies to Kurkjian, Neyer, Posnanski and others, of course, who through their well-reasoned, thoughtful, analytical contributions consistently show what a bunch of morons a lot of their competitors are]

[Matches]

Well, that makes a ton of sense. Lots of guys were cheating so lets penalize everyone, even the guys who did not cheat. I have never heard anyone accuse Maddux of steroid use and there is nothing in his career that would indicate he took any performance enhancing drugs. He was never a power-pitcher, always relying on location, movement, and change of speeds to get batters out. He was a brilliant fielder of his position too.

Maddux practically played the game while wearing a sweater-vest. If there was ever a guy you could look at and say "nope, that guy's not doping", it was Greg Maddux. Utterly insane to leave him off the ballot (as it would be to leave Glavine off).

Some folks' sense of self-righteousness over PEDs is just amazing. I wonder if these guys nod along to historical accounts of the Salem Witch Trials.

[Chicago 1995]

Well, any chance of Greg Maddux being the first ever unanimous HOF member has died. Some genius at MLB.com has revealed his ballot and it does not include Maddux. In fact, Ken Gurnick has voted for only one player from the 2014 HOF class, Jack Morris. Grunick says he refuses to vote for anyone who played in the "steroid era."

Well, that makes a ton of sense. Lots of guys were cheating so lets penalize everyone, even the guys who did not cheat. I have never heard anyone accuse Maddux of steroid use and there is nothing in his career that would indicate he took any performance enhancing drugs. He was never a power-pitcher, always relying on location, movement, and change of speeds to get batters out. He was a brilliant fielder of his position too.

The idea that a voter would ignore everyone from a 10-15 year stretch of baseball is ludicrous and insulting to the Hall voting process. What's more, as the linked article above indicates, if you think the "steroid era" did not begin until the mid-90s (which most everyone would agree upon) then Maddux was already HOF worthy from his pitching in the late 80s until the mid-90s. By 1995 he had 4 Cy Young awards, 6 golden gloves, and a slew of other HOF-worthy stats. Ridiculous!

Look, I don't know if Maddux is the greatest pitcher of all time and worthy of being the first unanimous player, but at least come up with a reasonable reason not to vote for him. I think I would be happier with the old-school lunatics who merely say they refuse to vote for any first-timer on the ballot out of some misguided tradition than I would with Gurnick's idiotic "I'm not voting for anyone who played from 1996-2008" (or whatever timespan you think the "steroid era" consists of).

-Jason "Twitter is ripping Gurnick a new one... I'm going to join the fun!" Evans

Jose Canseco and Mark McGwire. among others, think it's very kind of you, Jason, that you think the steroid era started in the mid 90s and not before. Your interpretation has to be what Gurnick means though -- otherwise, Morris pitched in the steroid era too and a bad argument becomes even more ludicrous. If you are going to take the stand that Gurnick is taking -- I'd think you'd need to leave your ballot blank going forward. Guys are still getting caught.

[Dev11]

Jose Canseco and Mark McGwire. among others, think it's very kind of you, Jason, that you think the steroid era started in the mid 90s and not before. Your interpretation has to be what Gurnick means though -- otherwise, Morris pitched in the steroid era too and a bad argument becomes even more ludicrous. If you are going to take the stand that Gurnick is taking -- I'd think you'd need to leave your ballot blank going forward. Guys are still getting caught.

The "Steroid Era" is really just one section of the "Performance-Enhancing Drugs Era," which dates back many more decades and includes a lot of other stars.

I hope that enough rabble is raised that the BBWAA/HoF overhauls the voting process soon.

[JasonEvans]

ESPN has posted the ballots of their 17 writers who get to vote. 17 is not an insignificant number of votes to determine if these guys are going to make the Hall.

Maddux , Thomas - 100% (17 out of 17)
Glavine - 94% (16 of 17)
Biggio - 76.5% (13 of 17)
Piazza - 70.6% (12 of 17)
Morris, Raines - 64.7% (11 of 17)
Bagwell - 58.8% (10 of 17)
Bonds, Clements - 52.9% (9 of 17)

As we all know, only the guys above 75% get into the Hall.

Contrast this with MLB.com, which also has 17 voters and published the results...

Maddux, Glavine - 94% (16)
Biggio, Morris - 76.5% (13)
Thomas - 64.7% (11)
Bagwell - 52.9% (9)
Piazza - 47.1% (7)

If we combine these together, we get a 34 vote sampling, which is a pretty significant number. I bet the final totals, due to be announced in about 30 minutes, come darn close to matching these results. Here they are--

Greg Maddux 97.06%
Tom Glavine 94.12%
Frank Thomas 82.35%
Craig Biggio 76.47%
Jack Morris 70.59%
Mike Piazza 58.82%
Jeff Bagwell 55.88%
Tim Raines 47.06%
Barry Bonds 44.12%
Roger Clemens 44.12%
Alan Trammell 32.35%
Lee Smith 26.47%
Curt Schilling 26.47%
Mike Mussina 23.53%
Jeff Kent 17.65%
Fred McGriff 14.71%
Edgar Martinez 11.76%
Rafael Palmeiro 8.82%
Don Mattingly 5.88%
Larry Walker 5.88%

-Jason "30 mins to go -- pleasantly surprised Glavine is doing as well on these ballots as he is" Evans