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

[Valadius]

I think what's done is done. I think that baseball fans have sense enough to know the Babe Ruths from the Tony Perezes. I think that each individual enshrined in the Hall of Fame is in there for some reason or another, and that we should respect those reasons. There are many different ways to define a Hall-of-Famer. It should not always be based on the accumulation of offensive statistics. Defense and intangibles ought to play a role as well. If not, you can kick Ozzie Smith out, as that's why he's in there. And I personally believe Mazeroski deserved it - he was possibly the greatest-fielding second baseman of all time. I think it's a worthless exercise to debate removing players from the Hall of Fame. It will always remain an exclusive club, but I think it ought to be more inclusive than some have suggested.

[nymr83]

defense is fine, but "intangibles" isn't a reason to induct a guy. either quantify what he did for his team or keep him out of the hall.

[Valadius]

Intangibles alone shouldn't be, but it ought to be a component that might push one's candidacy over the threshold. For example, if David Ortiz ends up with career statistics that get him serious consideration for the Hall, his record of coming up big in clutch situations should be factored in.

[nymr83]

its not "intangibles" if a guy had dozens of huge hits WHICH YOU CAN DOCUMENT, but just calling him "clutch" is an intangible and should not factor one iota in his candidacy

[Vic Sage]

]his record of coming up big in clutch situations should be factored in.

if its true, its quantifiable. If its not, its just a misperception built on a limited sample and shouldn't be considered

[Vic Sage]

Nymr83 wrote: i think the general fan population should get some SMALL say in things.

because they do so well with All-star balloting?

we get a "say" by arguing about the selections. That should be sufficient.

[nymr83]

]because they do so well with All-star balloting?

but the writers who gave Palmiero a gold glove for playing 15 games at 1B that year do an excellent job.

the fans would collectively do just as good a job as the guys who do it now.

[Vic Sage]

Nymr83 wrote: ]because they do so well with All-star balloting? but the writers who gave Palmiero a gold glove for playing 15 games at 1B that year do an excellent job. the fans would collectively do just as good a job as the guys who do it now.

oh, i agree. which is why i want to minimize the vote of sportswriters, not EXPAND it, or throw it open to other know-nothings.

[nymr83]

but who is not a "know-nothing"? ideally you'd leave it up to Bill James, Rob Neyer, and their ilk to use statistics to decide who the top X% of players are and put them in the hall, but i doubt that will ever happen

[Guest Edgy DC]

I have less problem with the BBWAA. They, like a large democratic body, vote because of all sorts of stupid reasons, but the stupid reasons rarely have any power and are eliminated in the volume of votes. (In the long run, what does it matter if Seaver wasn't unanimous?)

Blue ribbon panels are small and are more subject to wave of ill-considered consensus. (*Cough* Bowie Kuhn. *Cough.) They get appointed by even smaller bodies, and are easy to stack.

I think of a blue ribbon panel appointed by Dale Petroskey, and I go running to sweet embrace of the BBWAA.

[Valadius]

If statistics told the whole story, we'd have come up with a formula by now to pick Hall-of-Famers. We haven't because we can't leave it up to statistics. Statistics only present a single point of view. It is in interpreting these statistics and incorporating other elements of a player not on paper that we have to use in making our choices. It is in the diversity of viewpoints that a Hall-of-Famer becomes legitimized.

[Vic Sage]

there are any number of statistics voters could use in determining their HOF votes. Its just that many members of the BBWAA are too stupid to understand or use them, and prefer to rely on their subjective ancedotal views.

And while stats would not be the sole basis for a determination, because deciding which stats are of must relevance and how best to interpet them are all matters of debate, they should sure as shit establish a rebuttable presumption of either inclusion or exclusion that those who want to assert "intangibles" would have an opportunity to challenge.

If we can at least shift the debate to figuring out which accomplishments (objectively measured) should get a player into the HOF, instead of dealing with "I know a HOFer when I see one!" arguments, then that would be cause for some meaure of satisfaction.

[Frayed Knot]

Nymr83 wrote: ... but the writers who gave Palmiero a gold glove for playing 15 games at 1B that year do an excellent job. -- the fans would collectively do just as good a job as the guys who do it now.

Actually, Gold Gloves are voted upon by managers & coaches not writers -- a fact which somewhat negates the argument against taking the vote away from the BBWA and the assumption that some other body is automatically going to do a better job.

[nymr83]

Vic Sage wrote: there are any number of statistics voters could use in determining their HOF votes. Its just that many members of the BBWAA are too stupid to understand or use them, and prefer to rely on their subjective ancedotal views. And while stats would not be the sole basis for a determination, because deciding which stats are of must relevance and how best to interpet them are all matters of debate, they should sure as shit establish a rebuttable presumption of either inclusion or exclusion that those who want to assert "intangibles" would have an opportunity to challenge. If we can at least shift the debate to figuring out which accomplishments (objectively measured) should get a player into the HOF, instead of dealing with "I know a HOFer when I see one!" arguments, then that would be cause for some meaure of satisfaction.

exactly. but the writers will never get there without a change in the process because right now its the dinosuars club. i'd bet half of them couldn't tell you what OPS+ was and 90% have never heard of VORP.

[Vic Sage]

current managers and coaches were nowhere on the list of proposed voters that either I or 83 put forth.

[metsmarathon]

we should play "if you could, who would you remove from the hall of fame?"

wouldn't that be fun?

[nymr83]

Tony Perez and Phil Rizzuto.
Kirby Puckett, i'm sorry that you got sick but you are NOT a hall of famer.

[Valadius]

You would kick out Kirby Puckett? Seriously? He had 3,000 hits written all over him before he lost his sight.

[nymr83]

X has Y statistic written all over him before he suffered injury Z.

sorry, that argument shouldn't cut it.

[Valadius]

Well if you've played like a Hall of Famer for at least 10 seasons and you suffer a career-ending injury beyond your control, I think you should be evaluated based on your average performance when compared to other Hall-of-Famers, especially if there's no drop-off period at the end of your career.

[nymr83]

whats an injury "beyond your control"? isn't that pretty much any injury with the possible exception of injuries incurred while participating in dangerous non-baseball activities like washing your car (jeff kent.)

you should be evaluated based solely on the time you did play, not speculation as to what would have happened if you'd played more.

[metsmarathon]

to address your desired expulsion of kirby puckett, i would ask how you would evaluate the candidacy of one ralph kiner.

[nymr83]

Kiner's 10 years were hall-worthy. He is 26th on the career OPS list (36 on OPS+.) Puckett doesn't come close to Kiner's production and doesn't have the longevity to get around that.

[Valadius]

I'd say that going blind would qualify. Also ALS, cancer, or paralysis, for starters.

[nymr83]

Valadius wrote: I'd say that going blind would qualify. Also ALS, cancer, or paralysis, for starters.

vladius: creator of weird mets nicknames and the decider of which injuries/diseases qualify you for cooperstown.

my point is that you can't arbitrarily say "well cancer is ok, but losing a leg? no way" a guy's career must stand on it's own merits.

[seawolf17]

How do you put Puckett in and not, say, Rice or Dawson? Both those guys kick the hell out of Puckett's career. Yeah, it sucks that his career ended early, but that's tough titties.

That said, I don't necessarily have a problem with Puckett specifically; he's just borderline for me.

[metsmarathon]

="Nymr83"]Kiner's 10 years were hall-worthy. He is 26th on the career OPS list (36 on OPS+.) Puckett doesn't come close to Kiner's production and doesn't have the longevity to get around that.

so then you place no value on defense as a means whereby a player could augment his merit?

[nymr83]

sure a player could augment his merit with defense, but he doesn't need to when he's got a 149 OPS+ (kiner)

[metsmarathon]

if a player played shoddy defense, would it be fair to say that that should detract from his legacy?

[Vic Sage]

yes, but how much should it detract? And does it detract the same whether a guy is a 1bman or a SS?

First, one would have to agree as to the relative value of "fielding" (not "defense") to a player's total contribution. There are a number of studies and stats on this issue,none of which are definitive or flawless by any means.

But in the aggregate, the quantitative analysis suggests that:

if BASEBALL = 50% OFFENSE + 50% DEFENSE (because every run scored is a run surrendered), and
DEFENSE = 75% PITCHING and 25% FIELDING (because the pitcher can dominate a game irrespective of fielding, but even a great defense can't defend against HRs, BBs and line drives to the gaps), and therefore
FIELDING is 25% OF 50% = 12.5%, and
the 12.5% of BASEBALL that is Fielding is distributed amongst 9 fielders at a time, with the greatest share of that 12.5% going to the catcher, ss and cf, then

the fielding of corner players would have to have been so horrific to outweigh their offensive contributions to detract from their major leage legacy that they couldn't actually hold a job on the ML level. And while the fielding of up-the-middle players weighs more heavily, it still would take a pretty bad fielder at important defensive position to outweigh HOF offensive production. In such a case, that up-the-middle player is generally moved to a corner slot or dh, so it becomes a moot point.

Contrarily, an up-the-middle defender of such a great magnitude as to be considered HOF worthy would still have to produce a significant amount of offense to be a legit candidate.

So, no. Frank thomas is a HOFer and Keith Hernandez is not. And Ozzie Smith became a good offensive player in St.L. Concepcion never really did. So Ozzie is in and Davey is out.