A plea to restructure HOF voting

[tigers527]

This is a thought I've had for a long time, but it really got solidified with the election of Ryne Sandberg. I am in no way saying Ryne does not deserve to be in the hall, but his election really left a bad taste in my mouth. Seeing as his stats are almost identical to Lou Whitakers. Why is Lou no longer even on the ballot (revoke the votes of the Detroit media guys that wanted to wait to vote for Lou until Trammell was eligable a year later)?
The whole system is designed for the big media markets to get there guys in and some cases leave the less deserving guys (Ron Guidry, Don Mattingly etc.) on the ballot. My solution would be some sort of formula like this. The most votes any regional writers get would be equal to the fewest votes a region gets. So the 200 or so NY writers who get votes would only be valued to the 3 votes KC writers have. The 200 would still get to vote but in total all 200 postive would be 3. Now maybe weigh the national media a little more value for their vote 1.25 or something. Since I do not know the exact numbers (and I am sure some out there do), it is not an exact representation of the idea. But I do hope the intention of this suggestion could be heard.
Now the people I feel have been over looked. Jack Morris, I know he'd have the highest ERA of any picture in the HOF but when he had the lead he was a here it is hit it type of picture. The above mentioned Lou Whitaker, I know he does not have the gold gloves of Ryno, but the last half of his career them gloves were getting eaten up but Roberto Alomar. Sorry 84 Tiger fans but Alan Trammell does not deserve to be in, he really only had 3 really good years, then spent too much time on the DL to have the impressive domination at his position of the course of seasons.

[Brad Harris]

First of all, welcome to Baseball Fever, tigers527!

Secondly, I don't think there's a single poster who frequents this forum who doesn't believe the electoral system needs to be altered.

Without getting sidetracked too much on the individual names you mentioned, I'd like to address the primary thrust of your post which seems, to me, that BBWAA voters are dominated by major media markets and that their collective wisdom reflects that. I will be the first to agree that there is definately a bias of sorts towards guys who starred for the Yankees (and, to a lesser extent, perhaps the Dodgers). I had never considered the option of rationing votes between regions, however.

But it makes sense. They do it with the annual awards. Why not with Hall voters? Have, say, a maximum of two voters per franchise, as they do with the annual awards?

Of course the real problem is why can't broadcasters vote? Or television analysts? Or the players and managers? Or historians and scholars and authors? Why can't the fans vote?

Just as the writers don't have a monopoly on idiosyncratic opinions, neither do they possess one on thoughtful, intelligent analysis.

I think the best way to limit the power of the New York sportswriter in Hall of Fame elections would be to expand the franchise - at the very least - to all qualified broadcast media personalities. Why can't Jon Miller and Vin Scully, Denny Mathews and Mike Shannon, Skip Caray and Marty Brennaman vote? Why can't - gulp - John Kruk and Harold Reynolds, Keith Olbermann and Bob Costas, Chris Berman and Tom Arnold cast a ballot? These guys have all watched the game for the past 20+ years. What are the writers seeing that these men miss? They all cover the sport on a daily basis.

The more I think about Bill James' voting proposal, the more I like it. Have various groups of voters each conduct separate balloting. The media people can have their election. The players and managers can have theirs. The scholars and authors theirs. And the fans can have theirs. Once a player is "elected" by one of these four groups, he is in the nomination stage and, in perpetuity, remains eligible for the other three elections. Once a player is elected by three of the four groups, he's inducted.

With some common sense restrictions on the elections, this could work out quite nicely.

Regardless of how it's done, what needs to be done is for the BBWAA to have its power in these elections severely diminished because, as a group, they continue to mock the collective wisdom of the thinking baseball fan and do little more than exalt themselves as "guardians" of baseball's legacy.

Whitaker and Trammell are, arguably, the best players not yet enshrined at their respective positions. I would give both my vote. Jack Morris is essentially the 1980's version of David Wells (without the personality); he can buy a ticket.

[tigers527]

First off thanks for the thoughtful responce. I did not hear of the Bill James HOF solution. I like it quite a bit, seems more representitive. However, the rules should still be very strigent. All the other sports HOF's really are somewhat tainted by the Hall of Pretty Good syndrome.
I find it odd that the writers can vote broadcasters in but then the said broadcasters cant vote at all? Or do they get the living hall of famer vote that has something to do with the vets comitee? Although, if they can vote and be voted for? Maybe thats a conflict of interests. And we all know baseball is all about not having conflicts of interests. Bud Sieleg....Bud Sielegs investigation of steroids. All Star game "counting" not withstanding.

[vasprtsfn]

How abou this idea: Increase the number of years a player must be retired before he is on the ballot for the first time. This way, players who have been on the ballot longer are given first consideration.

[jalbright]

Without getting into the dream I have chosen to be identified with, another huge flaw is the whole idea that players should only have a certain time frame in which they could be elected. Our understanding of the game has and will continue to develop, so why tie our hands? Only those with rather compelling cases from the distant past would ever have serious candidacies reappear--and if they have compelling cases, why shouldn't they? If they don't have compelling cases, they're very unlikely to resurface in a serious way, so what's the harm in leaving the door open the tiniest bit?

Jim Albright

[vasprtsfn]

Without getting into the dream I have chosen to be identified with, another huge flaw is the whole idea that players should only have a certain time frame in which they could be elected. Our understanding of the game has and will continue to develop, so why tie our hands? Only those with rather compelling cases from the distant past would ever have serious candidacies reappear--and if they have compelling cases, why shouldn't they? If they don't have compelling cases, they're very unlikely to resurface in a serious way, so what's the harm in leaving the door open the tiniest bit?

Jim Albright

Actually, we already do that. The Veterans Committee votes every 2 years on players who dont get in within the 15 year limit. But I will take it a step further: How about taking players who dont get the 75% minimum, but get at least 35% in at least one of their 15 years on the BBWAA ballot, and have them comprise the Vets ballot?

[Brad Harris]

How abou this idea: Increase the number of years a player must be retired before he is on the ballot for the first time. This way, players who have been on the ballot longer are given first consideration.

Extending the waiting period for newcomers wouldn't give existing candidates any more consideration than they already receive. It would just change who is on the ballot. Let's say you extend the waiting period from 5 years to 10. The "no-brainers" would continue to be elected in their first year while less obvious worthies would continue to get short shrift. I would argue that extending the waiting period may actually do more to clog the ballot than streamline it.

Actually, we already do that. The Veterans Committee votes every 2 years on players who dont get in within the 15 year limit. But I will take it a step further: How about taking players who dont get the 75% minimum, but get at least 35% in at least one of their 15 years on the BBWAA ballot, and have them comprise the Vets ballot?

Actually...no we don't. There is a big gap of candidates who can receive as few as a single electoral opportunity in the first two decades after their retirement. Perhaps candidates have "perpetual" candidacies in the sense that the door will never be finally shut on them until they are elected, but these people getting a "hearing" before the voters in a given election is left to the arbitrary whims of the BBWAA and the Hall of Fame.

And please explain how you are taking "it a step further" when your solution to an expansion in the number of eligible candidates is quite the reverse! You suggest limiting the VC ballot to players who've received at least 35% support in previous BBWAA elections. That makes no sense to me.

[vasprtsfn]

What I meant was take this thought further; in other words, I wanted to further comment on this idea.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

This is a thought I've had for a long time, but it really got solidified with the election of Ryne Sandberg. I am in no way saying Ryne does not deserve to be in the hall, but his election really left a bad taste in my mouth. Seeing as his stats are almost identical to Lou Whitakers. Why is Lou no longer even on the ballot (revoke the votes of the Detroit media guys that wanted to wait to vote for Lou until Trammell was eligable a year later)?
The whole system is designed for the big media markets to get there guys in and some cases leave the less deserving guys (Ron Guidry, Don Mattingly etc.) on the ballot. My solution would be some sort of formula like this. The most votes any regional writers get would be equal to the fewest votes a region gets. So the 200 or so NY writers who get votes would only be valued to the 3 votes KC writers have. The 200 would still get to vote but in total all 200 postive would be 3. Now maybe weigh the national media a little more value for their vote 1.25 or something. Since I do not know the exact numbers (and I am sure some out there do), it is not an exact representation of the idea. But I do hope the intention of this suggestion could be heard.
Now the people I feel have been over looked. Jack Morris, I know he'd have the highest ERA of any picture in the HOF but when he had the lead he was a here it is hit it type of picture. The above mentioned Lou Whitaker, I know he does not have the gold gloves of Ryno, but the last half of his career them gloves were getting eaten up but Roberto Alomar. Sorry 84 Tiger fans but Alan Trammell does not deserve to be in, he really only had 3 really good years, then spent too much time on the DL to have the impressive domination at his position of the course of seasons.

Whitaker didn't lose Gold Gloves to Alomar. Whitaker is almost 11 years older than Alomar. Alomar din't win his first Gold Glove until 1991. The 1991 season was Whitaker's 15th major league season.

One of the reasons Sandberg is in and Whitaker is not is because Sandberg had some "big" seasons. Sandberg won the 1984 MVP and came close in a few other seasons. He lead the NL in HRs one year. Whitaker never really had any "big" seasons and he never led the league in any major offensive category.

[tigers527]

One of the reasons Sandberg is in and Whitaker is not is because Sandberg had some "big" seasons. Sandberg won the 1984 MVP and came close in a few other seasons. He lead the NL in HRs one year. Whitaker never really had any "big" seasons and he never led the league in any major offensive category.[/QUOTE]

I will concede the HUGE year factor but Whitaker did have some very solid years. He did win 4 silver slugger awards, finished 8th in MVP voting in 83, was second in OBP in 83. Lead off hitters rarely get the numbers MVP voters like. Although Whitakers avg is 9 points lower .276 to .285 his OBP is 19 points higher .366 to .347. And Whitaker won a WS, and if Leon Durham didnt Buckner the ball maybe we could of seen the 2 go head to head.

That said, my point was not to automatically include Whitaker into the HOF. It's why were there 2 very different results in HOF voting between 2 guys with remarkably simular numbers. One gets in fairly easily, the other doesnt even last 1 year of eligibility?

[125osprey]

I never actually compared their stats before. I had no idea they were so similar. Perhaps Sandberg has a slight edge, especially defensively, but overall the differences aren't that great.

Lou was a member of some great Tiger teams - '84, of course, and the squad that stole the division from the choking Jays in the final week of the '87 season.

I thought Sandberg was a good choice (and still do) for the Hall. I feel kind of bad for Lou.

[switch_hitter]

Another reason Sandberg got in was because he was the career home runs leader at his position (which has since been broken).

The election process does need to be streamlined, and as the Commish said, stratification also sounds like a good idea. I would most certainly weigh these groups (at least the fans, most assuredly), because broadcasting/media will always favor big market--just watch ESPN. Maybe the fans who vote should take a test or something, to see that they are at least qualified to speak on these matters--get registered, like for a national vote--but that's just wishful thinking.