2014 HoF ballot

[Jim Crikket]

I think fan voting is a lousy idea. I don't think anyone wants to hold up the AllStar Game voting process as one to replicate.

 

I think the following, relatively simple changes could go a long way toward fixing most of the problems:

 

1. Allow electronic media writers to gain membership in the BBWAA. "Print journalists" are just as much "electronic media" writers as those who they are excluding from their little club. To maintain an antiquated belief that they are somehow more knowledgeable than those writers who don't happen to have their work printed in ink on paper is absurd. How many organizations do you know who go to such lengths to keep new people out of their group? And if the BBWAA won't do this, the HOF should set up their own voter eligibility criteria, apart from BBWAA membership, where knowledgeable writers of print and electronic media outlets are included.

 

I would not include independent, self-employed electronic media among eligible those eligible to vote. The common blogger shouldn't have a vote no matter how long s/he has been blogging. I don't think it's unreasonable to require that an employer of some kind feels your work covering baseball is of sufficient value to pay you to do it on a regular basis in order to be considered for voting privileges.

 

2. The 10 year requirement for voter eligibility is fine. But balance that out by having voting privileges end once a writer has gone some period without being employed in a job that requires a significant about of baseball coverage. There is no reason at all that HOF voting should be a lifetime right. I understand that you want some voters who actually saw much, if not all, of the players careers that are on the ballot. A rule of thumb might be, once you've NOT been writing about baseball for as long as you DID write about baseball, your voting credentials are of questionable value.

 

3. The identities of eligible voters and their ballots are made public, as are the names of eligible voters who did not cast a ballot. Nobody can force anyone to defend their ballot choices, but the need for a "secret ballot" has long been overcome by a need for transparency. Voters hiding behind anonymity so they can stick it to players they don't like or make a "statement" with their ballot is a practice that should no longer be tolerated.

 

Many voters allow the BBWAA to make their ballots public. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of those ballots are at least defensible. The goofball ballots often seem to come from writers who do not give permission to BBWAA to make their ballots public. I doubt that's a coincidence.

 

That's it. End the silliness about having voting be the exclusive privilege of "print journalists," limit tenure of voters to a period equal to twice the years they actually held paid positions covering baseball that got them their voting privileges in the first place, and make public all votes (and lack thereof).

 

Notice I didn't suggest allowing voters to list more than 10 players on their ballot nor that the HOF come up with standards for PED user votes. I see those arguments as being BBWAA voters wanting a convenient way to fix a problem they have caused themselves. Fix the these three things and the other stuff will take care of itself eventually.

[ScrapTheNickname]

But fan voting for the all-star game is a travesty. a) The bigger market teams have more voters, 2) There is no limit to the number of times a fan can vote, III) Players and coaches are smarter voters than fans.

[cmathewson]

All they need is accountability. Give the Veterans Committee power to decide who gets a vote or not. Open it up to electronic media. Publish the votes on a moderated forum and let the fans have at it. Analyze the results and give it to the Veterans committee in the form of an annual report, helping them weed out the bad eggs.

 

I also think they should have ranked-choice voting. Especially in years with a glut of good candidates, it makes the most sense. Mike Mussina doesn't deserve it less because he has Glavin and Maddux in his class.

[Thrylos]

  cmathewson said:

Mike Mussina doesn't deserve it less because he has Glavin and Maddux in his class.

 

Maddux and Glavine did nothing to hurt Mike Mussina (and Curt Schilling btw). The writers who wasted votes for the much less qualified Jack Morris, because it was their last chance to vote for him and pass that agenda, were the problem. Give the Morris votes to Mussina and Schilling and they are in.

[Doomtints]

I think the important question is, did the right guys get in? Yes.

 

Who got one vote, who is boycotting PEDs, who didn't get in unanimously -- this is all noise. The system is working fine.

 

Six people got in this year (including the three managers) -- this is a lot. Borderline too many, if you ask me.

[Thrylos]

  Jim Crikket said:

I think fan voting is a lousy idea.

.

.

.

.

 

I would not include independent, self-employed electronic media among eligible those eligible to vote. The common blogger shouldn't have a vote no matter how long s/he has been blogging. I don't think it's unreasonable to require that an employer of some kind feels your work covering baseball is of sufficient value to pay you to do it on a regular basis in order to be considered for voting privileges.

 

Couple of interesting facts against those 2 points:

 

a. The Fans vote (the Deadspin vote) with the 75% cut off, would have gotten who the writers got in plus Biggio and Piazza. Not Mattingly, not Gagne. I'd argue that there are a lot of people who wonder why Biggio and Piazza were not elected today

 

b. We all know the BBWAA. There is a little group called the BBA (Baseball Bloggers Alliance; full disclosure: I am part of it) of independent baseball bloggers who every year they vote for the HOF. Here is this year's vote (with a bit of info about previous votes.) Guess what? They voted in exactly who the writers voted in.

 

That 75% cut-off is very powerful and it is a good check and balance...

[Thrylos]

  Doomtints said:

Six people got in this year (including the three managers) -- this is a lot. Borderline too many, if you ask me.

 

Don't compare apples with pineapples. There are a lot of us who wonder how consistent it is that Clemens and McGwire are not in because of alleged steroid use while their managers (who at least were aiding and abetting, by turning their heads the other way) were voted in. Two different groups, two different measuring sticks

[Brock Beauchamp]

My brain cramps every time I think of Mike Piazza not being in the HoF. Seriously. What the @&!$.

 

Sure, he was a lousy defender. But damn, a career 143 OPS+? I don't care if he wore his mitt on his head. His bat gets him in no matter what.

[Thrylos]

  Brock Beauchamp said:

My brain cramps every time I think of Mike Piazza not being in the HoF. Seriously. What the @&!$.

 

Sure, he was a lousy defender. But damn, a career 143 OPS+? I don't care if he wore his mitt on his head. His bat gets him in no matter what.

 

Had MLB network on while working yesterday morning and there was a certain HOF voter who said that he was very suspicious of Piazza being a PED user and the "acne on his back was the proof". I kid you not. Salem, MA circa 1692 type of evidence (google: Witch's Mark)

[Jim Crikket]

  Thrylos said:

Couple of interesting facts against those 2 points:

 

a. The Fans vote (the Deadspin vote) with the 75% cut off, would have gotten who the writers got in plus Biggio and Piazza. Not Mattingly, not Gagne. I'd argue that there are a lot of people who wonder why Biggio and Piazza were not elected today

 

b. We all know the BBWAA. There is a little group called the BBA (Baseball Bloggers Alliance; full disclosure: I am part of it) of independent baseball bloggers who every year they vote for the HOF. Here is this year's vote (with a bit of info about previous votes.) Guess what? They voted in exactly who the writers voted in.

 

That 75% cut-off is very powerful and it is a good check and balance...

 

I just don't think you can assume that the results of "public" voting hosted by Deadspin to determine how a single "real" HOF vote would be cast would turn out the same as a full-blown public free-for-all where anyone and everyone can cast a vote (or 500 votes if they have nothing better to do with their time and are suitably motivated to do so).

 

I'm also not saying that baseball bloggers are incapable or even unlikely to make wise choices with HOF votes. The point is simply that I do believe some baseline of experience doing more than just watching some baseball games and having the interest/ability to set up your own blog is not inappropriate. I don't think professional journalists who cover MLB for a living are a bad choice for entrusting the HOF vote. I just think that someone could do a better job of determining how "professional journalist" is defined in the modern age and in setting up rules for how someone is determined to be a voter.

 

Based on your "results are about the same" criteria, it's also fair to ask you why you think the current system should be changed at all. Why add the public if you think the public would just have included 2 more guys who will almost certainly get there in the future anyway? Why add bloggers if their votes add so little to the process that the results would have been identical to what actually happened?

[jm3319]

  Thrylos said:

Had MLB network on while working yesterday morning and there was a certain HOF voter who said that he was very suspicious of Piazza being a PED user and the "acne on his back was the proof". I kid you not. Salem, MA circa 1692 type of evidence (google: Witch's Mark)

 

It amazes me how many players are guilty until proven innocent. I really hope none of these writers ever get called for jury duty.

 

"Oh, someone is accusing you of murdering a family of four because you were seen in the same neighborhood that day? Proof enough for me! GUILTY!"

[Guest USAFChief]

  Thrylos said:

Couple of interesting facts against those 2 points:

 

 

b. We all know the BBWAA. There is a little group called the BBA (Baseball Bloggers Alliance; full disclosure: I am part of it) of independent baseball bloggers who every year they vote for the HOF. Here is this year's vote (with a bit of info about previous votes.) Guess what? They voted in exactly who the writers voted in..

 

So...the BBWAA should be ridiculed for voting in three players, but the BBA should get the job, because they voted in the same three players?

[Thrylos]

  USAFChief said:

So...the BBWAA should be ridiculed for voting in three players, but the BBA should get the job, because they voted in the same three players?

 

Nope. I think it should be an open fan vote with 75% cut off. The point was that a. you don't need to have covered baseball in the 70s to be able to make a determination for the hall of fame and b. there is just too much drama & personal agendas as is and opening it up will take care of it.

 

Funny thing is that it might not matter at the end, since all of the deserving (and some more) players will end up in by the VC...

[Mike Sixel]

  Doomtints said:

I think the important question is, did the right guys get in? Yes.

 

Who got one vote, who is boycotting PEDs, who didn't get in unanimously -- this is all noise. The system is working fine.

 

Six people got in this year (including the three managers) -- this is a lot. Borderline too many, if you ask me.

 

why is it too many? Raines and Biggio and others are better than other HoF, and "deserve" to be in....why is enshrining those who deserve it bad if it is a lot?

 

Also, I don't get why people care all that much. A lot of "ink" is spilled over who gets a plaque in a musuem not all that many people visit.....

[TheLeviathan]

I feel bad for Biggio,he was ridiculously underrated as a player. He should've been in. If nothing else from somehow going from catcher, to elite 2B, to covering a massive CF. Crazy.

[JP3700]

  Brock Beauchamp said:

My brain cramps every time I think of Mike Piazza not being in the HoF. Seriously. What the @&!$.

 

Sure, he was a lousy defender. But damn, a career 143 OPS+? I don't care if he wore his mitt on his head. His bat gets him in no matter what.

 

I agree, but at least Piazza looks close enough to eventually get in.

 

Edgar Martinez put up a 147 OPS+ for a longer period than Piazza and he barely received 25%. Tim Raines should have already been in years ago. Barry Larkin is in and Alan Trammell is still on the ballot getting 20%? All crazy to me.

[Thrylos]

  mike wants wins said:

Also, I don't get why people care all that much. A lot of "ink" is spilled over who gets a plaque in a museum not all that many people visit.....

 

I could probably spill a ton on ink on the why, but really the bottom line is $ (like most of the time.) Memorabilia, autographs, game-worn stuff. Lots of collectors out there want HOF collections and willing to pay top $ on it, so...

 

Even a better reason not to let a few have a saying for who goes in and who does not...

[TheLeviathan]

I would suggest the problem with Bonds isn't that he had a big head and muscles....it's that he magically transformed his whole physique in a very short time.

 

Thomas was always a huge guy.

[Brad Swanson]

  thetank said:

Morris will have to make it in the Veterans Committee. Wonder if he pitched fewer complete games if that would have made his ERA and WHIP numbers better since managers today think 6 or 7 innings is enough.

 

Not sure that would help him that much. Here's a link to his inning by inning splits. Innings 7-9 were better than 1-3 and 4-6.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/play-index/share.cgi?id=c9MAS

 

If the extra innings affected his durability by season, his monthly splits would show it, but he actually got better as the year went on:

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/play-index/share.cgi?id=Xf4Zf

[Thrylos]

Still don't get the affinity of Twins' fans with Morris. The Twins made him the highest paid pitcher in the AL in 1991. He decided to go to Toronto next season for the same money the Twins offered him.

 

And yes, there was that 1991 game seven. And yes, Morris lost to the Twins in '87 while wearing a Tigers' uniform. And including his postseason record, he won 22 and lost 12 games pitching for the Twins, but won 23 and lost 12 games pitching against the Twins.

 

Yeah he hails from the Cities. So what?

[DaveW]

This is how they should do it:

 

Hall of Famers who are alive: 30% of the vote

BBWWAAAAAAAA: 30% of the vote

MLB Players/Managers/GMs with 10 or more service time in the major leagues (one way or another): 30% of the vote.

Fans: 10% of the vote.

[mikecgrimes]

  thetank said:

For that matter why should Sosa and Palmeiro get way less votes than either 2 of them? They would both would be elected to the HOF if they retired in time before the scandal came out.

 

I don't totally throw out the post steroid use stats but in my mind McGwire and Sosa were not anywhere near a path to the hall. McGwire was basically Josh Willingham from 27 years old on, and Sosa was basically Jason Kubel. Bonds belongs in the Ruth Mays Ted Williams wing of the Hall it is insane to vote Thomas in and not Bonds.

[mikecgrimes]

  thetank said:

See the Dodgers beat writer not voting for anyone but Morris. Steroid era.

 

It is the only sensible way to vote against Bonds. Lets get real Frank Thomas did steroids, players of that era owed it to the fans no excuses.

[one_eyed_jack]

Love HOF debates, hate HOF voting. Here are the things that drive me nuts about the current voting body.

 

Overvaluing postseason play and undervaluing longevity

 

Every year I hear the baseball punditry hype the HOF candidacy of certain players for what they did in the postseason, then turn around and dismiss other guys as “compilers”. It makes no sense to me at all. It takes a truly special player to maintain a high level of play over the tough grind of a 162-game schedule year in and year out for more than a decade. But any decent major leaguer who happens to play on a good team can get hot for a couple of weeks in October. Look at your all-time leaders in any major stat. See many mediocre players near the top of the list? Now look at the list of guys who have won WS or LCS MVP award. Should we put Scott Brosius in the Hall?

 

The “first ballot Hall of Famer” thing

 

Either you think a guy is worthy of admission or you don’t. If you do, vote for him. If not, then don’t. But “I think he deserves to be in, but he should have to wait at least another year” is illogical and obnoxious. Hall of Fame voting is a difficult task that has devolved into a giant, sloppy mess thanks to things like this. If the voters believe in a tiered system where some guys receive higher honors than other, then that should be made official, and the voters should be allowed to vote on different levels of Hall of Famers.

 

The “if you have to think about it, he’s not a Hall of Famer” argument

 

Translation: I’m too lazy to put any thought or effort into this supposedly sacred process. This position is absurd on its face. Basically, if you believe this, you’re saying that there is no such thing as a borderline case. Reasonable minds can disagree about where the line should be drawn. But no matter if you draw it high or low, there will be guys who fall close to or on it.

 

People who make silly votes shouldn't be voting

 

I’m not even talking about token votes for fringe players, which is silly but relatively harmless. But if you’re one of those “I won’t vote for anyone who played in the 90’s” people, you shouldn’t be voting. You aren’t allowed to serve on a jury if you’ve already made up your mind that the defendant is guilty because it deprives him of the right to a fair and impartial trial. Same rationale applies here. It you’re not willing to give guys fair consideration, you should be decided their fate. Also, if you just make indefensible selections (e.g. voting for Larry Walker and Curt Schilling but not Greg Maddox or Frank Thomas), it should be the last ballot you cast.

[Thrylos]

That's all dandy and fine, until you realize that there are a few back doors to the HOF that let and will let not worthy people in...

[one_eyed_jack]

Feel bad for Biggio. 2 votes short, and several voters have said they felt he's worthy but didn't vote for him because of the max 10. (Jon Becker tweeted that he took Biggio off at the last minute in favor of Larry Walker - are you kidding me?).

 

That shows you the process is broken. Last year he didn't get in because of the phony "first ballot hall of famer" standard. This year he got screwed because of the voting limit. So that's two years in a row where he's kept out because there are voters are not voting for him even though they think he deserves to be in.

[DocBauer]

  Thrylos said:

Still don't get the affinity of Twins' fans with Morris. The Twins made him the highest paid pitcher in the AL in 1991. He decided to go to Toronto next season for the same money the Twins offered him.

 

And yes, there was that 1991 game seven. And yes, Morris lost to the Twins in '87 while wearing a Tigers' uniform. And including his postseason record, he won 22 and lost 12 games pitching for the Twins, but won 23 and lost 12 games pitching against the Twins.

 

Yeah he hails from the Cities. So what?

 

My response and overall opinion:

 

First, my soapbox. It is ridiculous and incompetent to have a system where voters have 10 spaces to fill in deserving names, especially this year with so many great talents and proven producers, and fill in only 1, or a couple names. The whole steroid era thing aside and not being discussed, you can't look with an objective eye and intelligent mind and find at least a few of these great former multiple all star players and at leas say, "he might be deserving" (fill in the blank yourself) Jaque Jones got a vote for goodness sake! Lifelong Twins fan here who loved me some Jaque Jones when he played, but, a hall of fame vote? Really?

 

Now to the main point. This is NOT directed toward anyone at all, just a frustrated response to those in charge of voting on these matters.

 

I believe statistics/numbers help measure the value of a player in any sport. But I also believe we can comb through statistics with too fine a tooth at times. Baseball, like any sport, has different eras. And as such, each era must be considered unto itself. As an example, using the NFL, would QBs such as Tittle or Graham or Starr be hall of famers compared to Tarkenton, Fouts, Marino and others? Probably not.

 

My belief in Morris as a HOFer is much like my feelings and arguments for Blyleven when he struggled to make it in. It has nothing to do with Morris hailing from MN, or the title he helped us win. It has to do with what he did, who he was, what he accomplished "in his era".

 

What is an era in sports? That's hard to define. Let's say roughly a 10 to possible 15 year time frame where said player/athlete played and performed. Switching back to baseball, and Morris, you have to ask yourself; "was that player a star? When I think all star, premium player, guy who came through in the clutch and produced, guy I didn't want to face...was he one of those?" Numbers tell part of the story, but not all.

 

Some would argue Morris's SO rate and ERA. I would argue 250+ plus wins, 170+ complete games in a time when the CG began to disappear, endurance, big game performance, and when you thought of a bulldog on the mound you didn't want to face in a big game, you thought of Morris. Thought most of the 80's and early 90's, when you thought of what an ACE was, you put Morris on that list.

 

Again, statistics can only tell part of the story. When I think of a player who produced in a large fashion, who was one of the best of his era, multiple all star, a guy you wanted on your team but didn't want your team to face, that's a hall of famer.

[stringer bell]

It looks to me like Piazza and Biggio will make the Hall, probably next year. I think they're both deserving. Jeff Bagwell has HoF numbers IMHO. I've always thought that Raines belongs, too.

[70charger]

  JP3700 said:

I agree, but at least Piazza looks close enough to eventually get in.

 

Edgar Martinez put up a 147 OPS+ for a longer period than Piazza and he barely received 25%. Tim Raines should have already been in years ago. Barry Larkin is in and Alan Trammell is still on the ballot getting 20%? All crazy to me.

 

Edgar Martinez is one of the glaring omissions in my mind. So is Piazza, but I think he's pretty much a lock for next year. Sometimes that's how these things go.

[ericchri]

  stringer bell said:

It looks to me like Piazza and Biggio will make the Hall, probably next year. I think they're both deserving. Jeff Bagwell has HoF numbers IMHO. I've always thought that Raines belongs, too.

 

I agree with all the sentiments here, but I don't think next year is necessarily a lock for Piazza. Biggio will probably pick up a bunch of votes from people who feel sorry for his close margin this time but Piazza isn't quite that close, and with Randy Johnson, John Smoltz, and Pedro Martinez, and I guess Gary Sheffield (I never really thought of him as a HOF type, but I'd totally forgotten he has over 500 HR), the ballot isn't getting any easier next year. Piazza's probably getting in at some point, but I'm not sure it's next year.