Hall of Fame Voting: This Year, Next Year, and Beyond

[MFS62]

Edgy DC wrote: Don't be stubborn --- the two of you. Open your hearts and minds. It's a techinicolor world and you're looking through black-and-white glasses. There hasn't one guy on a Hall of Fame players ballot who hasn't played defense, so you're just being stubborn for the sake of it.

No, I'm being anti-DH.
Just because I am.

Later

[Guest Edgy DC]

You're not being rational.

You realize that Babe Ruth would likely have spent more than half of his career at DH had it meen available to his managers. Williams also. These are undoubtably two of the top five players ever to lace up their cleats --- arguably one and two.

I'm against trades. I'm not going to propose any player traded, or any GM who executed a trade, be kept from the Hall of Fame.

[nymr83]

being a DH should count against you- because you provided no defensive benefits and you received the benefit of being able to pile up numbers while not having the wear and tear of playing the field every day. DHs should NOT be excluded from the HOF but their offensive standard need to be higher than a 1B/LF type just as a 1B/LF type should be held to a higher offensive standard than a C/SS.

edit-spelling. I'm Tom Glavine and i blew this post.

[Guest Edgy DC]

That's a fair and rational view.

[MFS62]

And that's what I meant.
My "never playing defense" comment was just some hyperbole.
I've posted against the DH rule often(with many of those same rational points), so this was just another chance to mention my feelings.

Later

[Guest Edgy DC]

If its hyperbole, you state it over and over and over, without taking the time to clarify your meaning.

[metirish]

Chass not happy with this at all.

Omitting Miller Not Surprising, but Still Embarrassing

[Guest Edgy DC]

Chass gets to the heart of it. In deference to the frustration that, because the Vets Committee was somehow failing because they weren't electing anybody the last two years --- the Valadius position --- they re-jiggered the process and appointed a small board more subject to whims, prejudices, and fraternal behavior (exactly the historical problem with the Veterans Committee), and elected the wrong guy(s) (typical historical result of the Veterans Committee).

[Guest Edgy DC]

Pete Hamill's expected O'Malley Column.

[MFS62]

Edgy DC wrote: If its hyperbole, you state it over and over and over, without taking the time to clarify your meaning.

Sorry.
I did explain my feelings about that rule quite clearly the first time it came up after I started posting on the CPF. Unfortunately, many of the posts from those days were lost during the move of the board to the new home; only some of the old posts were apparently kept.

Later

[Valadius]

Dick Williams going in with an A's cap:

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-halloffame-williams&prov=ap&type=lgns

[Valadius]

The late Larry Whiteside of the Boston Globe gets the Spink Award:

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-spinkaward&prov=ap&type=lgns

[Valadius]

For those who are curious, the following ex-Mets were eligible this year to appear on the ballot for the first time but didn't make the cut:

Dennis Cook
Bobby J. Jones
Dave Mlicki
Armando Reynoso
John Valentin

[Guest sharpie]

Shrink the HOF sez Salon:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/12/17/hall_of_fame/

[Benjamin Grimm]

I wouldn't be opposed to shrinkage.

I wasn't thrilled to see Gary Carter's name as the first proposed evictee, but, whatever.

He listed a lot of old-timers who, he feels, got in as a result of cronyism. (There probably are more than a few Harriet Miers in the Hall.) Other recent players, though, in addition to Carter, are Don Sutton and Gaylord Perry.

Less is more. If Gary Carter has to be sacrificed as part of a purge, then so be it.

Of course, this will never happen. A better possibility would be for some competing organization to create a Baseball Hall of Exclusivity. It would take many years for it to gain the prestige of the place in Cooperstown, if it ever did, but I'd like to see someone try it.

[MFS62]

I like this part about Kuhn/ Miller:

]The shock was that former commissioner of baseball Bowie Kuhn was voted in. During Kuhn's tenure from 1969 to 1984, he lost every significant battle he fought. Under Miller's leadership, the players' union finally ended the grip of the century-old reserve system that had made a player the property of one team indefinitely unless he was traded, sold or released.

That's like glorifying the loser, General George Armstrong Custer and not the winner, Chief Sitting Bull. Oh wait. We do that. Never mind.

As for his premise, I agree. There are a lot of "pretty good players" in there for whom I would not have voted.

Later

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

MFS62 wrote: I like this part about Kuhn/ Miller: ]The shock was that former commissioner of baseball Bowie Kuhn was voted in. During Kuhn's tenure from 1969 to 1984, he lost every significant battle he fought. Under Miller's leadership, the players' union finally ended the grip of the century-old reserve system that had made a player the property of one team indefinitely unless he was traded, sold or released. That's like glorifying the loser, General George Armstrong Custer and not the winner, Chief Sitting Bull. Oh wait. We do that. Never mind. As for his premise, I agree. There are a lot of "pretty good players" in there for whom I would not have voted. Later

I tend to be more inclusive than most. There are certainly players in there who don't belong -- most of them named Rizzutto -- and there are some who are not in and do belong, like Jim Rice, who didn't kiss the asses of tbe baseball writers, a group that can be pretty petty.

Plus, there are stupid people with ballots, like the 23 idiots who DIDN'T vote for Willie Mays and the two dumb-asses who DIDN'T vote for Tom Seaver because they don't vote for anyone on the first ballot.

I'd be in favor of stripping the voting from the BBWAA as a unit, but allowing some of them to be part of a voting group that also would include historians, folks like Bill James, former player and others.

I think you'd see better picks.

[Frayed Knot]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: A better possibility would be for some competing organization to create a Baseball Hall of Exclusivity.

Or maybe a Hall of Merit

Projects like this go on all the time - but, like you said, they're not going to out-prestige the one in Cooperstown anytime in the near (or distant) future. This particular one was done just recently via the 'Baseball Think Factory' website which generally has some intelligent conversations about baseball issues.

They took it era by era and essentially discussed and then re-voted on each (via a process not unlke our Rankings Project) with a goal of actually not reducing the overall number inducted but rather to get the "right" players in and the "wrong" players out while maintaining the same amount as the real HoF.

And y'know what ... there are still going to be disagreements.

I'm not real big on rehashing each past vote for the purpose of culling old members. On this issue I'm pretty much in the same place as I'm am with steroids: the past is the past and, whatever mistakes were made back then, it's more important that we get it right from this point forward.

[Guest Edgy DC]

My imaginary alterna-Hall --- the Royal Court of Baseball --- would have three tiers: The Knights of Baseball, the Lords, or Baseball, and the Princes of Baseball.

You'd be eligible 25 years after signing your first contract, so some guys would be admitted while they're still active. You'd have to be a Knight for five years before you could become a Lord, and you'd have to be a Lord for five years before you could become a Prince.

Presumably, we'd have a few Dames, Ladies, and Princesses also.

There'd be a quota too. Only a fixed small percentage of figures in a category could achieve the title of Knight, a small percentage of those Lords, and so on.

And I'd be a real jerk about putting a bunch of jerky standards of conduct in there. The world has enough assholes. Not in my court, Baby.

[G-Fafif]

Edgy DC wrote: the Princes of Baseball.

I nominate my non-cousin Tom who once inscribed a ball for me "great last name!"

http://www.baseball-reference.com/p/princto01.shtml

[Vic Sage]

i've often advocated for the dis-enfranchisement of the BBSWA as the voting authority on the HOF and the institution of a blue ribbon panel (which could include some BBSWA members) to do the annual voting, for both current eligible nominees and expired veterans, as well as for executives, umps, etc.

i like the idea of tiers, too. The HOF actually could do that in an informal way tomorrow. All they'd have to do is decide to display the HOF plaques in a different way, implying "tiers" of importance without stating it as such. You could have the "inner circle" of all-time greats, with a surrounding circle of valid HOFers, and a third outer ring of the borderline cases. I'm against any kind of expulsion mechanism, but reconsideration of a player's career further down the line, and then reclassifying what tier they might have more appropriately been assigned to seems like a reasonable course.

But first lets get the voting away from the hacks. Nothing else good can happen until the HOF takes that first step.

[soupcan]

="Vic Sage"]But first lets get the voting away from the hacks. Nothing else good can happen until the HOF takes that first step.

I thought Vic wrote..."But first lets get the voting away from the blacks..." and spit out my coffee.

[Valadius]

I must admit that at first glance I saw the same thing too, soupcan.

[Frayed Knot]

Vic Sage: Exposed as closet racist - film at eleven!!


My problem with a "tiered" HoF system is the fear that it will inevitably lead to the lowest tier being populated by players not really deserving based on the attitude that it's OK to put them in because by doing so you're not staining the "real" hall.

[Vic Sage]

as i said, if you take the vote away from the "hacks" (regardless of race), you get a more sophisticated level of voter who will see that as a stupid reason to vote in less qualified candidates.

the tiering is more a way to deal with mistakes of the past, rather than an excuse to continue making mistakes. But such a system is still rife with abuse, as you've noted, unless and until the vote is taken away from sportswriters of every color.

[nymr83]

i don't want tiers, just elimination of the peoplwe who don't belong.

the vote needs to be divided up better:

20% Newspaper sportswriters
20% paid internet sports writers (not joe shmoe with a blog)
10% prominent statiticians like Bill James
10% Sports radio and television people as well as other historians of the game (prominent auithors about the sport and stuff)
10% living broadcasters with X years experience
10% current hall of famers (to represent who the players feel should get in)
10% all living managers who managed 5 years in the big leagues
10% fans (an official internet poll of the HOF website for each eligible player, if he gets 80% of the fan vote then thats like getting 8 of the 10 votes allocated to fans, etc)

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

="soupcan"] ="Vic Sage"]But first lets get the voting away from the hacks. Nothing else good can happen until the HOF takes that first step. I thought Vic wrote..."But first lets get the voting away from the blacks..." and spit out my coffee.

Jim Rome tells a funny story about interviewing a former quarterback -- I think Joe Theisman -- after a football player's encounter with the law, and asking him if he thought the league has had enough "black eyes."

Except Theisman thought he said "black guys" and said no, he thinks the diversity within the NFL is a good thing...

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

Vic Sage wrote: as i said, if you take the vote away from the "hacks" (regardless of race), you get a more sophisticated level of voter who will see that as a stupid reason to vote in less qualified candidates. the tiering is more a way to deal with mistakes of the past, rather than an excuse to continue making mistakes. But such a system is still rife with abuse, as you've noted, unless and until the vote is taken away from sportswriters of every color.

I don't like the tiers because then you start getting the same arugments we have now, only whether the player belongs in this teir or that. And then some goofball puts Catfish Hunter, or worse, Derek Jeter, in a top tier. Then you'll have people advocating for a tier above the top tier for the Ruths and Seavers -- until someone puts Mariano Rivera in that group.....

I like that you are either a Hall of Famer or not. Most people who are not Yankee fans aren't stupid. They know there's a difference between Tom Seaver and Gaylord Perry without having it spoonfed to them.

[Vic Sage]

Since "those who do not belong" is a matter of opinion, it seems a rather arbitrary standard to impose after the fact, with the rather draconian result of metaphorically stripping a player of his epaulets.

Tiers are a gentler way of imposing objectivity on the HOF, thus making it a more useful tool for future generations to assess the history of the game.

As to your proposed voting breakdown, I don't think allocating 60% of the vote to sportswriters, radio heads and broadcasters is going to solve very much.

I would suggest something more like:

20% - prominent statiticians, academics, historians (published within last 5 years, or holding a related position for 5+years)
20% - Newspaper/Internet professional sportswriters (5+years experience)
20% - Radio / tv commentators & broadcasters (5+ years)
20% - former managers, umps and executives (5+ years in the majors)
20% - current hall of famers
0% fans - are you kidding?

[nymr83]

i think the general fan population should get some SMALL say in things.