Can you name the MLB HOF'ers With The Most Years On The Ballot? by jaykin

Can you name the MLB HOF'ers With The Most Years On The Ballot?

created by jaykin

Enter an answer (last names acceptable) in the box below
Correctly named answers will show up below
Answers do not have to be guessed in order
Players who were on the ballot since 1962 for the longest time before being elected by the BBWAA. Prior to 1962 there was not a 15-year limit.
Source: baseball-reference.com
This quiz has not been verified by Sporcle

Popular trivia games today

Isn't It Ironic?

10753

TV Debuts: 2008

10305

Unpopulous Neighbors

7828

Word Ladder: It's a Trap!

6643

The Object of the Game

6394

Thesaurus Words (A-Z)

5713

Famous Faces

5575

One-word Movie Mix-and-Match

5290

And more...

PLAY GAME

10:00

Show Missed Answers

Years on Ballot	Player	Year Elected
15		2009
14		2011
13		2006
13		1975
12		1976
11		1980
10		1984
10		1970
9		2010
9		2008

Years on Ballot	Player	Year Elected
9		2000
9		1968
8		1985
6		2003
6		1987
6		1984
5		1998
5		1997
5		1978
5		1969

Javascript is not currently enabled on your browser.
If you do have Javascript enabled:
This site uses javascript to make the magic happen.
Please turn on javascript and reload this page, or use a more current browser (like Firefox)

You might also like these games:
MLB Hitting Streaks	MLB .400 Hitters	MLB 40-HRs by 4-letter players

There are 18 comments for this game.
(Warning: comments may contain spoilers)

MLB HOF Longest Wait Quiz

by jaykin

Created Jan 29, 2011 in Sports
Game Plays 2,164

Friend Scores and Standings

Loading friend results....

Top Games Today in Sports

Top Games with Similar Tags

Top User Games in Sports

	Etheridge2:	Jan 29th, 2011 at 14:05 GMT		1 point
	AWESOME!!!!

	rk559:	Jan 29th, 2011 at 17:33 GMT		2 points
	Hard to believe Sutton, Niekro and Mathews had to wait so long, belonging to those "automatic" clubs. Nice quiz.

	tigerfan53:	Jan 29th, 2011 at 19:56 GMT		2 points
	What makes this so hard is getting confused by old-timers committee picks. Great quiz.

	dxdtdemon:	Jan 29th, 2011 at 23:15 GMT		-3 points
	Should Pete Rose be a bonus answer?

	Suekoff16:	Jan 30th, 2011 at 08:42 GMT		1 point
	@dxdtdemon he shouldn't because he's not in the hall of fame. And sadly he never will get in unless he gets reinstated which would mean him swallowing his pride and apologizing to Bud Selig's face.

	poinsecurra:	Jan 30th, 2011 at 15:30 GMT		1 point
	Can't believe Drysdale had to wait ten years. I didn't think Koufax overshadowed him that much.

	sox_fan1468927:	Jan 31st, 2011 at 17:03 GMT		4 points
	I never understood making players wait. Do players do something while they are in retirement that makes them go from not a Hall of Famer to a Hall of Famer? If you are good enough to be in, you're good enough to be in first ballot in my opinion.

	nickipedia:	Feb 1st, 2011 at 03:26 GMT		1 point
	ron santo should be a bonus answer on here as still waiting

	CorneliusTree:	Feb 1st, 2011 at 04:03 GMT		2 points
	Sox_fan - Ideally that's how it works, but sometimes opinions on what makes a Hall of Famer change - and more statistical analysis, or influential writers drawing attention to a players' greatness, can tip the scales.

	CorneliusTree:	Feb 1st, 2011 at 04:11 GMT		2 points
	Also, I wonder what the holdup was with Roy Campanella? The man is in the argument for greatest catcher of all-time, and was clearly recognized in his time as he won three MVP awards. Were people holding his short major league career (cut off on the early end by the color barrier, on the late end by his car accident) against him, or was it latent racism, or what?

	topper009:	Feb 1st, 2011 at 18:55 GMT		1 point
	Jackie Robinson made it on his first ballot in 1962, Campanella was not held out due to racism. The reason was due to his .276 career average, which at the time was a major point of consideration for the voters (and still is). Same reason for Mathews and his .271 ave. It took Harmon Killebrew 4 years to get in even though when he retired he was 5th all-time in HRs because of his .256 ave. Sutton and Niekro had bad W-L% which the voters really cared about then (and still do, Blyleven) so that held them back for a few years. Sutton had 256 losses and Niekro had 274 losses.

	sox_fan1468927:	Feb 2nd, 2011 at 23:02 GMT		2 points
	CorneliusTree: Unfortunately that is not the true reason. It shouldn't take more than 5 years to construct a statistical analysis of a player. The writers have created some sort of special honor to be voted in first ballot and many leave players off for ridiculous reasons like simply not liking the player. Roberto Alomar spitting incident comes to mind.

	jaykin:	Feb 2nd, 2011 at 23:17 GMT		1 point
	I agree with sox_fan. And how do you explain players like Mays, Aaron, Musial, etc. not receiving 100% on the first ballot?

	sox_fan1468927:	Feb 3rd, 2011 at 20:29 GMT		1 point
	jaykin: There's another thing, a lot of voters feel like "If Ruth didn't get 100%, no one does" and then they hand in blank ballots, which is ridiculous. Nolan Ryan received a higher percentage of votes than Mickey Mantle, that's just silly

	jaykin:	Feb 3rd, 2011 at 21:27 GMT		1 point
	sox_fan: I've heard the Ruth argument too, and it's ridiculous. But I guess if they used some sabermetric formula to determine HOF induction, then the column writers and analysts would be out of work and we wouldn't be doing games like this.

	sox_fan1468927:	Feb 3rd, 2011 at 21:58 GMT		1 point
	jaykin: I never suggested using sabermetric formulas to determine Hall of Fame voting, nor would I ever suggest such a thing. I'm just questioning guys who don't vote for a player right away, but after 10 or so years of retirement they have all of a sudden become Hall of Fame worthy without doing anything on the field. I mean, Blyleven first became Hall of Fame eligible in 1998. Here is what he added to his resume between this year and 1998. 0-0 record with a 0.00 ERA and 0 innings pitched. The guy should have been a Hall of Famer 12 years ago

	jaykin:	Feb 3rd, 2011 at 22:28 GMT		1 point
	sox_fan: Sorry, that wasn't directed at you. I'm on the same page as you are with this. As a Reds fan, I'm hoping that Larkin gets better during the next year.

	sox_fan1468927:	Feb 7th, 2011 at 21:19 GMT		1 point
	jaykin: Larkin will easily get in next year. He should already be in. Best shortstop of the 90s hands down. Next year is a very weak incoming class, the best players are Bernie Williams and Tim Salmon. 2012 should be interesting though.