195 replies to this topic

[DJ MC]

The problem is that most voters don't vote for borderline candidates on their first go, especially if they may be undervalued for some reason like Lofton or Whitaker are.

There could be a separate vote to keep guys on the ballot or at least just keep them on for 3-5 years. What's the harm? It's better than having legit candidates knocked off the ballot.

The biggest problem is still that the electorate is overwhelmingly old-fashioned when it comes to thinking about the sport. Not just in terms of stats, but in terms of overall analysis: which actions matter in terms of scoring and preventing runs, measuring defense, measuring the differences in eras and ballparks, and so on. Until that changes, either by directly adjusting who gets a vote or by simply waiting for people to die off, there can be any number of cosmetic changes to the ballot and it really won't make a difference.

[DJ MC]

Opening Post
First Base
Second Base
Shortstop
Third Base

Joe Posnanski is going through the entire Hall of Fame and, noting that the BBWAA historically has a very high standard for the players they elect, trying to figure out exactly what that standard is for each position.

At least read the post on Third Base, so you can be flummoxed at how far above other positions the writers demand those players be.

[Oriole85]

Sure. I don't think that you can keep Jeff Cirillo and Todd Walker on the ballot for 15 years.

But on the other hand, it is very easy for quality players who simply get forgotten for whatever reason to fall through the cracks. Lou Whitaker was as good, if not better compared to his peers and fellow Hall-of-Famers, as Alan Trammell. Kenny Lofton may not be a no-doubt guy, but he would still raise the overall level of Hall-of-Famers and deserves more than a cursory glance.

Posnanski has been recently advocating a Tom Tango idea to add a "more consideration necessary" option to the ballot, and any player who receives a certain number of those votes would remain on the ballot even without the five percent of yes votes. I don't know if that would work, because I don't trust that enough of the current electorate would use the option. Something does need to change, though.

If 95% don't think you're a HOFer, I think that's enough to preclude someone from the HOF. Frankly, they could raise it to 10% and I probably be OK with it. No one is ever going to be completely satisfied. But if you're really advocating for someone who gets 5% to get more of a look, I think you really need to pick-and-choose your battles. How many players who got less than 10% on their initial ballot eventually got in by the HOF voters within that 15 year period? There's too many people who don't deserve to be on the ballot as it. This is a way to weed them out.

[Oriole85]

The problem is that most voters don't vote for borderline candidates on their first go, especially if they may be undervalued for some reason like Lofton or Whitaker are.

There could be a separate vote to keep guys on the ballot or at least just keep them on for 3-5 years. What's the harm? It's better than having legit candidates knocked off the ballot.

How many people undervalue Lofton and Whitaker? Maybe they just aren't good enough according to the people who vote. If you can't get 5%, you probably aren't legit and aren't suddenly going to get the necessary 70% or 25x more to get into the HOF.

The 5% is enough of a threshold IMO. As I said too many players on the ballot to begin with. Keep the HOF selective.

[mweb08]

How many people undervalue Lofton and Whitaker? Maybe they just aren't good enough according to the people who vote. If you can't get 5%, you probably aren't legit and aren't suddenly going to get the necessary 70% or 25x more to get into the HOF.

The 5% is enough of a threshold IMO. As I said too many players on the ballot to begin with. Keep the HOF selective.

Obviously a lot of people undervalue them because they are legit HOF candidates. People have started with less than 5% and gotten in the HOF btw.

The HOF can be just as selective regardless of guys that deserve consideration like Whitaker and Lofton are on the ballot. If your stance is to keep the HOF selective, that suggests you already think it is, and by the standards of its selectiveness, both of those guys are better than many HOFers so they'd be worthy based on previous selections.

[mweb08]

I just picked a couple years at random to see how many guys started with low percentages and ended up in the HOF, check out this one:

http://www.baseball-.../hof_1962.shtml

Ron Santo started with 3.9% of the vote as well.

[Oriole85]

I just picked a couple years at random to see how many guys started with low percentages and ended up in the HOF, check out this one:

http://www.baseball-.../hof_1962.shtml

Ron Santo started with 3.9% of the vote as well.

Well I did say voted in by the writers, not the Vet Committee, but fair point there. Do you feel Whitaker or Lofton are HOFers or just warrant more consideration? As in if you had a vote this year, would you have voted yes or no?

[Oriole85]

Obviously a lot of people undervalue them because they are legit HOF candidates. People have started with less than 5% and gotten in the HOF btw.

The HOF can be just as selective regardless of guys that deserve consideration like Whitaker and Lofton are on the ballot. If your stance is to keep the HOF selective, that suggests you already think it is, and by the standards of its selectiveness, both of those guys are better than many HOFers so they'd be worthy based on previous selections.

I'm curious how your system would work with the "keep under consideration?" Would 75% of those have to vote "yes?"

[mweb08]

Well I did say voted in by the writers, not the Vet Committee, but fair point there. Do you feel Whitaker or Lofton are HOFers or just warrant more consideration? As in if you had a vote this year, would you have voted yes or no?

I didn't look through all of them, but some were voted in by the writers after starting under 10%.

I feel that Whitaker is a HOFer and that Lofton is borderline and I'd have to analyze him more. Considering how many people I would have voted in this year, Lofton may have had to wait for me even if I did decide he was worthy.

In a perfect world, I'd take out a lot of guys in the HOF and that would raise the standards, but as it is now, while I can ignore the outliers at the bottom of the range, there's just too many guys already in the HOF that players such as Whitaker and Lofton measure up to pretty well or even surpass to think they don't warrant consideration. And it's not just a matter of mistakes made a long time ago or by the Vets Committee, both of these guys are better candidates imo than Rice, Dawson, Puckett, and Sutter for example.

[mweb08]

I'm curious how your system would work with the "keep under consideration?" Would 75% of those have to vote "yes?"

Well first off, I can't take credit for the idea or system. Not sure on the %, but 75% may be fine. You have to remember that borderline guys simply won't be voted for by a fair amount of writers on their first year of the ballot because they distinguish from a first ballot guy and everyone else; in addition, some players tend to win over more guys as time goes on so that's another reason why these guys should stay.

I'd also be fine with just leaving guys on for 3-5 years without having to pass a vote threshold. I'm not sure I get your criticism about the ballot having too many guys since no one is going to pay any attention to guys like Sele anyway so it doesn't really matter either way imo if they stay on the ballot. My intention is obviously not to keep guys like him on the ballot, but to keep guys like Whitaker, Lofton, Bernie Williams, Kevin Brown, Albert Belle, and other borderline, yet possibly underrated guys under consideration for longer. The worst thing that really comes from that is those guys continue to get talked about for years to come and some interesting conversation is generated.

[DJ MC]

Well I did say voted in by the writers, not the Vet Committee, but fair point there. Do you feel Whitaker or Lofton are HOFers or just warrant more consideration? As in if you had a vote this year, would you have voted yes or no?

Do you believe Biggio was a Hall of Famer? Whitaker put up nine more WAR in his career in one fewer year and 2500 fewer plate appearances. He walked more times than he struck out. His biggest problem was that he retired after a half-season in 1995 (I assume due to health, since he still hit for an .890 OPS in 250 PAs) very quietly, and his performance was almost immediately overshadowed by the increased offense. Who is going to put Lou Whitaker in the Hall of Fame when Jeff Kent and Bret Boone are hitting 35 homers a year at second?

[DJ MC]

Well first off, I can't take credit for the idea or system. Not sure on the %, but 75% may be fine. You have to remember that borderline guys simply won't be voted for by a fair amount of writers on their first year of the ballot because they distinguish from a first ballot guy and everyone else; in addition, some players tend to win over more guys as time goes on so that's another reason why these guys should stay.

I'd also be fine with just leaving guys on for 3-5 years without having to pass a vote threshold. I'm not sure I get your criticism about the ballot having too many guys since no one is going to pay any attention to guys like Sele anyway so it doesn't really matter either way imo if they stay on the ballot. My intention is obviously not to keep guys like him on the ballot, but to keep guys like Whitaker, Lofton, Bernie Williams, Kevin Brown, Albert Belle, and other borderline, yet possibly underrated guys under consideration for longer. The worst thing that really comes from that is those guys continue to get talked about for years to come and some interesting conversation is generated.

The thing is, not every "Hall-eligible" player makes the ballot. Tony Batista wasn't up for a vote this year, for example, despite ten major-league seasons a five years of retirement. So whomever is making that decision could have a certain power in making this decision.

Or you could do it much simpler: for a certain number of years after your name goes on the ballot (say five), you only have to receive a vote to remain eligible. So guys who don't receive any votes fall away. Even the writers who give courtesy votes won't offer them up more than once. Then the threshold starts going up, say to five percent for two years, then ten percent, then fifteen, then twenty, and finally to twenty-five percent for the last two eligible seasons.
There is a point where your case has no chance and deserves to drop off to wait for the VC.

[Oriole85]

Do you believe Biggio was a Hall of Famer? Whitaker put up nine more WAR in his career in one fewer year and 2500 fewer plate appearances. He walked more times than he struck out. His biggest problem was that he retired after a half-season in 1995 (I assume due to health, since he still hit for an .890 OPS in 250 PAs) very quietly, and his performance was almost immediately overshadowed by the increased offense. Who is going to put Lou Whitaker in the Hall of Fame when Jeff Kent and Bret Boone are hitting 35 homers a year at second?

I do but is this the Hall of WAR or HOF? I think you should send your grievances to the writers. To answer your question, if they didn't think he was a HOFer in 2000, there probably less likely in 2012.

[Oriole85]

The thing is, not every "Hall-eligible" player makes the ballot. Tony Batista wasn't up for a vote this year, for example, despite ten major-league seasons a five years of retirement. So whomever is making that decision could have a certain power in making this decision.

Or you could do it much simpler: for a certain number of years after your name goes on the ballot (say five), you only have to receive a vote to remain eligible. So guys who don't receive any votes fall away. Even the writers who give courtesy votes won't offer them up more than once. Then the threshold starts going up, say to five percent for two years, then ten percent, then fifteen, then twenty, and finally to twenty-five percent for the last two eligible seasons.
There is a point where your case has no chance and deserves to drop off to wait for the VC.

I believe they have to meet some minimum threshold such as average %, innings pitched, etc but all that meet one of the requirements are allowed on the ballot. Not entirely sure.

I think maybe in the first year of eligibility, they should vote to deem players HOF "consideration" which would weed out players like Aaron Sele. Then I would vote for the HOF class after this, I think the 5% should apply on this ballot. Just my 2 cents on how to fix the process.

[DJ MC]

Left Field
Center Field

The first asks an interesting question about Barry Bonds, the second about "feeling" someone is a Hall-of-Famer.

[Oriole85]

ESPN: Vote doesn't bother Roger Clemens

http://espn.go.com/m...-sleep-hof-vote