Is HOF Voting biased?

[108stitches]

Do you think that Hall of Fame voting is biased? As it stands now, only the Baseball Writers' Association of America (BBWAA) votes on induction. Players, managers, owners and fans are not included in the balloting and have no say. Could the voting by BBWAA be biased toward certain players and/or teams and should the election process be reviewed and possibly changed to allow a wider base of voters? Is it more subjective or objective? Your thoughts...

HERE ARE THE CURRENT RULES FOR INDUCTION.
BBWAA Rules for Election to the Hall of FameElection to the National Baseball Hall of Fame is possible through one of two ways. The Baseball Writers' Association of America (BBWAA) considers the candidacies of players who have played at least 10 major league seasons and been retired five seasons. The Veterans Committee considers those players whose careers concluded no later than 21 seasons ago, along with managers, umpires and executives. Rules for the BBWAA election are listed below.

Rules for Election by the Baseball Writers' Association of America.
1 Authorization: By authorization of the Board of Directors of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, Inc., the Baseball Writers' Association of America (BBWAA) is authorized to hold an election every year for the purpose of electing members to the National Baseball Hall of Fame from the ranks of retired baseball players.

2. Electors: Only active and honorary members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America, who have been active baseball writers for at least ten (10) years, shall be eligible to vote. They must have been active as baseball writers and members of the Association for a period beginning at least ten (10) years prior to the date of election in which they are voting.

3. Eligible Candidates -- Candidates to be eligible must meet the following requirements:
A baseball player must have been active as a player in the Major Leagues at some time during a period beginning twenty (20) years before and ending five (5) years prior to election.

Player must have played in each of ten (10) Major League championship seasons, some part of which must have been within the period described in 3 (A).

Player shall have ceased to be an active player in the Major Leagues at least five (5) calendar years preceding the election but may be otherwise connected with baseball.

In case of the death of an active player or a player who has been retired for less than five (5) full years, a candidate who is otherwise eligible shall be eligible in the next regular election held at least six (6) months after the date of death or after the end of the five (5) year period, whichever occurs first.

Any player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate.

4. Method of Election: BBWAA Screening Committee — A Screening Committee consisting of baseball writers will be appointed by the BBWAA. This Screening Committee shall consist of six members, with two members to be elected at each Annual Meeting for a three-year term. The duty of the Screening Committee shall be to prepare a ballot listing in alphabetical order eligible candidates who (1) received a vote on a minimum of five percent (5%) of the ballots cast in the preceding election or (2) are eligible for the first time and are nominated by any two of the six members of the BBWAA Screening Committee.

Electors may vote for as few as zero (0) and as many as ten (10) eligible candidates deemed worthy of election. Write-in votes are not permitted.

Any candidate receiving votes on seventy-five percent (75%) of the ballots cast shall be elected to membership in the National Baseball Hall of Fame.

5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.
6. Automatic Elections: No automatic elections based on performances such as a batting average of .400 or more for one (1) year, pitching a perfect game or similar outstanding achievement shall be permitted.

7. Time of Election: The duly authorized representatives of the BBWAA shall prepare, date and mail ballots to each elector no later than the 15th day of January in each year in which an election is held. The elector shall sign and return the completed ballot within twenty (20) days. The vote shall then be tabulated by the duly authorized representatives of the BBWAA.

8. Certification of Election Results: The results of the election shall be certified by a representative of the Baseball Writers' Association of America and an officer of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, Inc. The results shall be transmitted to the Commissioner of Baseball. The BBWAA and National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, Inc. shall jointly release the results for publication.

9. Amendments: The Board of Directors of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, Inc. reserves the right to revoke, alter or amend these rules at any time.

[STLCards2]

I do not fully understand the question. Who are you wondering if they are biased towards? Certain teams? Types of players?

You mention only writers and not fans, players, etc. Are you asking if writers vote less objectively than would the fans, etc.?

Merry Christmas, by the way!

[108stitches]

I do not fully understand the question. Who are you wondering if they are biased towards? Certain teams? Types of players?

You mention only writers and not fans, players, etc. Are you asking if writers vote less objectively than would the fans, etc.?

Merry Christmas, by the way!

My apologies on the wording of the question. I have edited it. Are the writers biased based on aggressivenes as opposed to finesse, charisma versus meekness, numbers alone or numbers and value to the team, etc. Obejctively or subjectively? It is well known that all forms of media are biased. Should the voting be opened up to include those who are not BBWAA?

[Paul Wendt]

It is well known that all forms of media are biased. Should the voting be opened up to include those who are not BBWAA?
Yes, opening to other "forms" of media makes sense. I suppose you equate BBWAA with the form daily newspapers, which isn't the falsehood furthest from the truth.

Once, all members of the BBWAA members were members of chapters based in major league cities. In the beginning, they were almost all writers for newspapers published in the major league cities. How much has that changed? For example, was there a BBWAA member in Denver before 1993? Is there a BBWAA member in Montreal today?

[Captain Cold Nose]

The vote is fairly well-spread out nation-wide. No region has an advantage over another, which could change if certain aspects are allowed to vote.

I'd say the voting is fairly objective. One has to bear-in-mind, HOF voting is one very minor facet of these writers' jobs. I think they've done a fairly good job over the years, with only a few slipping through the cracks. The Veteran's Committee has been far, far worse.

Managers and players are far more subject to cronysim than the writers would be. All-Star voting shows how well the fans would do with this sort of thing. Electronic media could be added, but there are already 500+ voters or so now. Bloating this out would only harm the voting process as it currently stands.

[brett]

I think that the voters are strongly biased against guys with low batting averages. They also like to see several .300 seasons in a career.

I think that they do not like guys with partial seasons (less than 100 games) that break up runs of excellence. You can have a couple of injury plagued seasons but they want to see 10-15 basically full seasons in a career. They like RUNS of greatness and goodness.

They prefer hitters with big raw stats over guys with better relative stats.

They definitely are biased improperly towards gold glove winners. Gold gloves have not tended to go to the right guys anyway, and they are automatic bonus points.

They are biased towards dead guys.

[Paul Wendt]

Does anyone have knowledge or an informed guess what share of the 500+ voters are either (a) one of multiple eligible voters at their own newspapers --vs. newspapers with only one eligible voter; or (b) one of multiple BBWAA members at their newspapers --vs. newspapers with only one BBWAA member?

Managers and players are far more subject to cronysim than the writers would be. All-Star voting shows how well the fans would do with this sort of thing.
I agree about managers and players in general (whether or not they are Hall of Fame members as the veterans committee members are) and about fans in general.

BBWAA members with ten years standing probably do a better job than would writers in general, although I am not sure of that.
Electronic media could be added, but there are already 500+ voters or so now. Bloating this out would only harm the voting process as it currently stands.
I doubt that an increase in number alone, from 500 to 1000, would make any difference. Expansion from 50 to 100 might make a difference for the worse. Expansion from 500 to 1000 might make a difference for the better. If there were more newspapers where at least one voter publishes a completed ballot with comments, that would improve the process in some ways, albeit probably without any impact on election results.

[Domenic]

I, for one, would like to see living Hall of Famers have a vote in General Hall of Fame voting, and entirely eliminate the Veteran's Committee. In Grandfathering this notion, those players that would have been arriving on the Veteran's Committee ballot would receive a "final shot" in the next round of voting.

[Fuzzy Bear]

My apologies on the wording of the question. I have edited it. Are the writers biased based on aggressivenes as opposed to finesse, charisma versus meekness, numbers alone or numbers and value to the team, etc. Obejctively or subjectively? It is well known that all forms of media are biased. Should the voting be opened up to include those who are not BBWAA?

I DON'T want the process to be opened up to former managers and players, outside of the VC. My fear in that is that Frankie Frisch Syndrome would infect the selection process from the outset. The BBWAA members, as imperfect as they are, have proven to be (as a rule; there are excepctions) more objective than panels that contain other players/former players, managers, etc.

Biases toward agressiveness vs. finesse, charisma vs. meekness, numbers alone vs. value to the team; these are biases that play out in ANY selection process. They play out, one way or another, in the hiring process for any number of occupations, and the bias depends on the personality of those interviewing/evaluating. The difference, of course, is that the process for HOF induction via the BBWAA is, for the more successful candidates, up to a 15 year process.

Fifteen years is a long time. As Bill James has pointed out often, over a period of time, the IMAGE of a player fades somewhat. What does not fade; in fact, what becomes clearer, is the player's statistics (especially batting stats). Jim Rice's batting stats are the same now as they were in 1995; what has faded is the remembrance of his sudden fade-out, his attitude rep, the talk of his GIDPs and how he wasn't as valuable as his triple crown stats suggested. What is front and center on Rice is the fact that his triple crown stats are in the range of where players who were considered stars in their time are reasonable selections for the HOF.

The other thing in focus with a player over time is his awards won and his triple crown black ink. Rice won an MVP award in 1978 in a memorable season in which Rice was the everyday star of a team that took the eventual World Champions to a one-game playoff at the end of the regular season. He led the AL in home runs thrice, and in RBIs twice. He was an eight (8) time All-Star, and he played on two World Series teams.

These things may not accurately measure the true value of a player, but they are tangible, indisputable measurements of a player's accomplishments. A player's triple crown stats, his awards won, his black ink accumulated; all of this is the kind of stuff that can be put into a letter to the Sporting News , or Baseball Digest, or the sports editor of your local newspaper to explain why so-and-so should/should not be inducted into the HOF. And sportswriters read these letters; how many of these types of letters on Jim Rice has the AVERAGE BBWAA member read in the last year alone? This is the INPUT that the BBWAA members are getting; they can't be blind to it, can they?

[Fuzzy Bear]

One bias that the BBWAA does seem to have is a bias against players with truncated careers.

What truncates careers are several factors:


Mid-career position shifts, especially when the shift is to an easier defensive position
Frequent trades
Injuries
Shifts in ability (e. g. a player with speed hitting for average in their 20s who loses his speed, but adds significant power in their 30s) that do not indicate a loss of value, but which prevent a player from reaching key HOF milestones (500 HRs, 3,000 hits, maintaining a .300 BA)
Fluctuation in performance level/type from season to season


There are other things that truncate a player's career. Truncation of a career is something that gives the player an image of a "flawed" player. A player who stays with one or two teams, who stays at his original position, who stays healthy, or who is not consistent from season to season, is seen as having a more coherent career by the writers. It's why John Smoltz will walk into the HOF, while Bert Blyleven has had to wait and wait and wait.

[Paul Wendt]

Here is one group for consideration. Its BBWAA history happened in the 1960s-70s and its veterans committee history may be written, I suppose, now that Marty Marion has been dropped from the ballot.

core:
Arky Vaughn
Lou Boudreau, Phil Rizzuto, Marty Marion, Pee Wee Reese
Alvin Dark

fringe:
Luke Appling?, Leo Durocher?
Ernie Banks?, Luis Aparicio?
Red Schoendienst?, Nellie Fox?, Bill Mazeroski?
George Kell?, Gil McDougald? Jim Gilliam?

The BBWAA elected only Lou Bourdreau from the core group,
Appling, Banks, and Aparicio from the fringe.

--
Is it fruitful to consider together some of Rocky Colavito, Frank Howard, Jimmy Wynn, Reggie Smith, Jim Rice, Dale Murphy?
not Tony Oliva, whose productive career practically ended with injury, a la Albert Belle

[Gregory Pratt]

It's why John Smoltz will walk into the HOF, while Bert Blyleven has had to wait and wait and wait.


I'm sure that's it, Fuzzy. It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that John Smoltz is better than Bert Blyleven.

[SamtheBravesFan]

I'm sure that's it, Fuzzy. It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that John Smoltz is better than Bert Blyleven.

I think their cases are closer than you'd think. I'd like to see BOTH of them make it. :P

[108stitches]

:shrug:The vote is fairly well-spread out nation-wide. No region has an advantage over another, which could change if certain aspects are allowed to vote.

I'd say the voting is fairly objective. One has to bear-in-mind, HOF voting is one very minor facet of these writers' jobs. I think they've done a fairly good job over the years, with only a few slipping through the cracks. The Veteran's Committee has been far, far worse.

Managers and players are far more subject to cronysim than the writers would be. All-Star voting shows how well the fans would do with this sort of thing. Electronic media could be added, but there are already 500+ voters or so now. Bloating this out would only harm the voting process as it currently stands.


I am not saying that they do a bad job. Can the job be done more effectively? Should only 500 writers have the power to decide whether a man gets into the HOF or should we also include the intangibles of attitude, professionalism and desire that the fans, coaches, GM's, etc. could also bring to the table? I am not saying we should give them the vote, perhaps a say. I am in no way trying to dilute or subvert the Hall, but I am curious about what others think? I am sure that I am not the only one who ponders this.:shrug:

[Captain Cold Nose]

:shrug:


I am not saying that they do a bad job. Can the job be done more effectively? Should only 500 writers have the power to decide whether a man gets into the HOF or should we also include the intangibles of attitude, professionalism and desire that the fans, coaches, GM's, etc. could also bring to the table? I am not saying we should give them the vote, perhaps a say. I am in no way trying to dilute or subvert that Hall, but I am curious about what others think? I am sure that I not the only one who ponders this.:shrug:

I understand where you're coming from. Sorry, I didn't mean to sound like I was shooting you down. You're not alone, by far.

Of course, it can be done more effectively. There are obvious flaws with how it is done now, among them the writers do have full-time jobs covering their teams and that obviosuly requires most of their attention. HOF voting is a perk for tenure, so some may not take it as seriously as others.

I don't think any other HOF has a voting body even close to the size of Baseball's HOF voting body. It might be five times larger than the football one. And with that reduced size, the football HOF voters actually meet and discuss the candidates, paring down the ballot a couple of times before coming to the actual inductees. I've always liked that system, personally. I don't think something like that could happen with such a large voting body like baseball's.

Yet I think the large size, and as widespread the writers are, goes a long way preventing bias. With the large number any regionalism will fall short. No matter how loud the shouting from certain parts of the country jaded by their own guys, it evens out.

If other factions, coaches, players, bloggers, Tv and cable, are brought in, it would have to be even across the league. No area or team and the opinions coming from them are more important than any other, despite how some seem to think otherwise.

I do think it's objective now. Opening up the voting would have to mirror the current layout, to retain that objectivity. Can it be done? I would hope so.

[108stitches]

I understand where you're coming from. Sorry, I didn't mean to sound like I was shooting you down. You're not alone, by far.

No offence taken. I worked within the broadcast medium for years and understand how slanted reporting and sensationalism can change an entire story. I wonder if baseball writers (who slant their stories to fit their teams audience) do that exact same thing for the candidates they wish to promote. In the case of broadcast journalism, it is done on a regular basis. I wonder if there may be some form of colluision among writers for a certain candidate?

[KCGHOST]

I have never detected any consistent bias by the BBWAA. Particularly as regards to a player's team affiliation. I guess I could amend that by saying with the exeption players who toiled for the Montreal Expos. :D

Having first choice in the voting process does make the BBWAA lean toward the more dominant players. Of course, that's what we want them to do so that's a good thing.

[Captain Cold Nose]

No offence taken. I worked within the broadcast medium for years and understand how slanted reporting and sensationalism can change an entire story. I wonder if baseball writers (who slant their stories to fit their teams audience) do that exact same thing for the candidates they wish to promote. In the case of broadcast journalism, it is done on a regular basis. I wonder if there may be some form of colluision among writers for a certain candidate?

We may be seeing that with the opposite effect with drug issues, steroids or otherwise. Mark McGwire's drawing a low number, as did Tim Raines in his sole year on the ballot thus far. While Jim Rice was seen as a top slugger of his time and is about to get rewarded for it, Dave Parker has a better resume and was just as feared but hasn't drawn near the support Rice has. A lot of people think Keith Hernandez should be in for his glove and solid hitting. I don't think drug issues harmed Fergie Jenkins's candidacy as much as sharing a ballot with first Bench and Yaz and then Morgan and Palmer, but you heard about it at the time. It was mentioned with Orlando Cepeda a lot, and the writers just came very close with him until he made it on his first VC try. Paul Molitor gained health (he stopped misisng so many games due to injury) as well as big numbers and rings after the coke scandal.

As for pushing forward a candidate, I wouldn't be too surprised. Luis Aparicio's vote totals improved remarkably after the first couple tries. Bert Blyleven has gained double-digit percentage increases the last couple years. Has he been rediscovered or is this part of an ever-growing campaign after he was snubbed badly a few times? I don't have any problems with Aparicio being in and I have long felt Blyleven deserves it, but when you see jumps like that, you do have to wonder.