You’re a Wizard, Kyrie! Cavs-Washington, Behind the Box Score
January 7, 2016Browns interview Adam Gase & Teryl Austin (and more on the search for a head coach)
January 7, 2016Last year was a gigantic year for the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum. For the first time in 60 years (!), four players (Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz, and Craig Biggio) crossed the 75 percent threshold needed for election. Yes, I was still very angry about that whole Paul Hoynes “I forgot to vote” column. But all in all, it was a very successful year for the Hall of Fame.
Entering the 2016 ballot, most expected key percentage increases for a number of intriguing players approaching election. This was because of the much-applauded thinning out of the voting poll that was announced over the summer. Baseball Writers Association of America rules now required voters to be active within the game within the last 10 years. Inactive voters were oft-accused of only voting for a few players.
Only 440 votes were cast this time around, down from 549 one year ago. And as expected, may players in the mid-tier range did receive large increases in their support. However, the drop from 8.42 votes-per-ballot down to 7.95 was still highly discouraging and a key sign of the issues of the existing Hall of Fame process. Not everything has been fixed just yet. The BBWAA should strongly consider implementing at least two new rules during its next meeting.
First, the organization should enable voters to vote for up to 12 players in a given year. Such a rule failed to pass during the December meetings. But we have seen time after time again that voters are forced to “manage” their ballot in order to be more strategic with their votes. This is clearly an issue and it has created a clogging of the ballot for years. If 12 votes were permitted, it is possible that several more players would have been elected this year, and rightfully so. The concept of “waiting” for election is a charade that should end.
Secondly, the BBWAA should lower the years requirement for members looking to receive a vote. Currently, that requirement is 10 years. That means writers such as Jay Jaffe, arguably the preeminent modern Hall of Fame analyst, isn’t eligible to vote until 2021! It’s preposterous. This should be lowered down to only eight years. Heck, while the BBWAA is at it, they should also change that recent rule and maintain that voters should be active within the game within the last eight years. Why is the rule five years for players and 10 for voters? It’s illogical and antiquated.
Don’t get me wrong, there certainly has been some positive momentum for the BBWAA of late. Last month’s decision to enable MLB.com writers and editors to become BBWAA members is definitely noteworthy. Overall, votes-per-ballot are still way higher than previous years. And it certainly looks inevitable that Jeff Bagwell and Tim Raines will finally reach induction on the 2017 ballot.
I hope that the continued controversy and negativity swirling around the Hall of Fame and BBWAA doesn’t affect the Hall of Fame election of Ken Griffey Jr. and Mike Piazza. Both are beloved stars who were a staple of my childhood baseball fandom. They deserve to be in. But so do many other current and future eligible players, and in a much more streamlined process. Reform is not over yet. It has only just started.
Things that I’ve enjoyed reading on the Internet lately:
- Larry Nance, “Trust Me, Being An NBA Legacy Son Is A Lot Harder Than It Looks,” The Cauldron — I love reading things about Larry Nance, the Akron native and son of the Cavaliers legend. He’s had a very impressive last month or so for the downtrodden Los Angeles Lakers. And his battle with Crohn’s disease is hopefully very inspirational for many, many young people.
- Chris Haynes, “Before you look down on LeBron James’ response to the Tamir Rice case, look within,” Cleveland.com — I don’t like to get too political. But you should definitely read this very personal essay from the Cavs beat writer. It took a lot of guts to share this publicly.
- David Zavac, “Checking in with the new year: How are the Cavs doing in five key advanced stats?,” Fear The Sword — Good stuff from David here on five stats that he identified before the season and then updated at the one-third mark. J.R. Smith has been on fire ever since, so nicely done, David.
- Jessica W. Luther, “Sports Writing and Reporting by Women in 2015,” Power Forward — Kudos to Jessica for all of the work and aggregation in this piece on the top journalism from women in sports in 2015. I know that I personally do not share enough content by women, both in this space and in my sports analytics roundups. This was absolutely fantastic.
- Eric Maroun, “2015 Faves,” Storify — This is hilarious and the best year-end recap that I read. Well done, Scoops.
- Bill Barnwell, “The Easiest Way to Lose 125 Pounds Is to Gain 175 Pounds,” Medium — And finally, you all should read this from Bill. It touches on the topic of depression, weight-gaining, and weight loss. Bill is one of the best football writers out there on the Internet. You should also now know his personal story and how he’s battled through some dark times. Kudos to you, Bill. This is wonderful.
59 Comments
HOF voting is a joke. You either ARE an HOFer or you ARE NOT an HOFer.
This whole 1st, 2nd. 3rd ballot thing has to go.
And these baseball writers not voting Jr. just so it won’t be unanimous is ridiculous.
Just one of the reasons I dispise the archaic institution that is American baseball.
http://i.imgur.com/YNiPa8H.gif
as a tigers fan , i’m still a little baffled on how jack morris & alan trammell can’t get in.
I like the exclusivity of the baseball HOF and the fact that it’s really hard to get in. Don’t cheapen it by relaxing standards. They’ve worked pretty well for a long time.
Here’s what I don’t get: Clemens got 45%, Bonds 44%, and McGwire 12%. If you’re going to vote for Clemens and Bonds, why wouldn’t you vote for McGwire? Doesn’t make sense.
I think the rationale there is Clemens and Bonds were in before they started using, and that McGwire was pretty much a one trick pony and his trick happens to be the thing PEDs helps most. He wasnt a great fielder, never hit much better than .280, had lots of injury issues, if you subtract 84 homers off his total, there no way he gets in. Just speculating
He had a sub .800 OPS only twice in his career. Apart from hitting the long bombs, he was on base all of the time and was probably THE most feared hitter in MLB for a decade. They need to let this guy in. We have no way of knowing how many guys were using PEDs during that era, but my assumption is that it was more players than not. Or put it this way, if it’s more or less allowed, why would you let other players have that competitive advantage and not do it yourself?
um, I am not a sportswriter, nor do I have a vote. I was relaying the conventional wisdom, as I have gathered by listening to a few scribes over the past few years
I know max, but I was using your comment to get up on my soapbox. Had to do it somewhere! 🙂
I don’t mind the multiple ballots if only because it allows someone to reconsider based on the articles written in defense of ballots. But, three ballots should be enough. And, no restriction on number of votes.
glad to be of service!
I dont think I agree with “the most feared hitter in baseball for 10 years”, but tomatahh tamatahh
I want the HOF to be a museum of baseball, but the special room in the back wouldn’t be for those who were very, very good. I’d have rotating displays with guys like those, but not static plaques (same goes for Albert Belle for Indians for me too).
Clemens and Bonds were much, much better at what they did for a longer period of time.
I’d have all three in the HOF, but my first two would be Clemens and Bonds (if we needed to order them).
the rule of 10 is lame
Also, from Jaffe:
Whitaker & Morris could make 2017 Expansion Era ballot but IIRC, Tram has to wait until 2020 (assuming same process)
When I was very young, I was a Tigers fan (until 87ish and I spent all day in the summers listening to 1100 or 1220 while at work with my Dad). I loved Tram and Sweet Lou. I think Trammell falls under “Hall of very very good for a long time”
As for Morris, I think the main thing detracting from his candidacy is his ERA. He was the winningest P of the 80s. He had some nails performances in the World Series with the Tigers and Twins, but was pretty mediocre for the Blue Jays in ’92. So I think thats why theres so many dissenting opinions, and he cant reach 75%
hi MG … morris had 254 wins & 4 world series rings & i forget how many no-hitters … and while he gave up the most hits , earned runs & & home runs in the 1980’s , he also had the most starts , innings & wins in the 1980’s … i’d call that dominating an era. i think his 3.90 career era keeps him out.
i realize trammell is on the edge , but he played 20 seasons with the same team , was a 6 time all-star , a fine defensive player … and was robbed of the 1987 mvp , which may’ve put him over the top.
hi MAX … you nailed it about morris … lou whitaker is my favorite player off all-time.
Stats are stats. Players don’t magically hit more home runs, or strike out more batters after they’ve retired.
The whole 1st, 2nd, 3rd ballot thing is a farce.
The question is simple. Is player X HOF worthy? If you have to think about it, the answer is no.
The HOF has become the Hall of Pretty Good.
Lou was a class act. My favorite story about him was in the ’84 Series where they screwed up and didnt send his uniform to SD. They had to go buy an off the rack Tigers jersey and stencil his name and number on (with marker, I think). Random story that stuck in the mind of a 7 year old.
Also, wish I still had my Dad’s “Bless you Boys” t-shirt. Loved it.
i always thought clemens was maybe the best pitcher of all-time … i will get arguments on that for sure … and if you’re being honest , bonds may’ve been the greatest hitter of all-time if you consider avg , obp & the power numbers.
Morris is an interesting case, for sure. While I think you know what I think about “pitcher wins,” I don’t completely discredit competitive fire guys who get things done either.
He certainly did not dominate his era, but doing well in the postseason gets him closer. Just my opinion he wouldn’t get in, but understand those on your side too.
i remember …
I’m actually in line with Bill Simmons when it comes to Hall of Fames. Yes, they should certainly have the best players from each era according to their statistics, but I think they should also have the players who are simply the most famous during each era (note that I don’t mean “infamous”). If you only want players who were statistically awesome, call it the Hall of Records, not the Hall of Fame.
I was just using stats as a general term for performance.
My point was, if player X retires in 2000, and doesn’t get elected when he becomes eligible, what makes him a HOFer 10 years later , or 20 years later?
If you have to think about it, the answer is no.
What magically happens that makes Trammell an HOFer in 2020, but not now? Or in all the other years since he became eligible?
good point …
Totally agree. Unfortunately the baseball writers (and the media) have been doing a slow creep on the Bonds/Clemens bundle. They’ve found a way to justify letting in two known cheaters (that they would have gotten in anyway) while disallowing the rest of the era (Sosa, McGwire, etc). I disagree with that silly justification and think none of those turds should get in, consistent with the HOF high horse mentality. Anyway, their notion seems to be gaining momentum.
Maybe the best pitcher of all time and the undeniably best, otherworldly, “f it… I’m using the cheat codes” player of forever.
2017 looks like a good year for Raines and Bagwell. And Hoffman too. The ballot has really been cleared out and there really aren’t any big names being added. Well, outside of Manny, but he has the PED cloud and the “Manny being Manny” rep.
It’ll be interesting to see how the steroid crowd does in 2017 and beyond. In addition to Raines, Bagwell, and Hoffman, there’s a few sure thing candidates who will be Hall eligible. With fewer no doubters and more middling candidates, I wonder if voters will start looking at the numbers put up by Bonds et al a little differently.
Next year Pudge Rodriguez too. Honestly, despite the clamor for Bonds & Clemens (which will frankly always be there from their fans), based on admissions, I think they’ve been weathering the storm just fine in the sense that they can find 2 guys each years “hall worthy”… and eventually after a few more years, some of the PEDers will start dropping off the ballot.
I’m not sure how I feel about McGwire. Personally, I see him as a one-dimensional player. That said, he was arguably the best at that one dimension. He hit a home run ever 10.6 ABs. That’s a full AB better than Ruth and two better than Bonds.
I think maxfnmloans is right though. Some writers can justify voting for Clemens and Bonds because they can rationalize that they were great before the roids. Or they think about how Bonds had a more diverse set of tools. So even without PEDs, Bonds would still have been a great fielder. And then there’s the fact that the general belief that PEDs help hitters more than pitchers, particularly in hitting the long ball (which just happens to be McGwire’s forte).
Nothing. As noted, I wouldn’t put him in. But, figured tb2 would want to know the current rules/timelines for him.
All of which is true. But people aren’t rational. And baseball writers are the least rational of all human beings. It takes them years to comprehend basic information. Sabermetrics have revolutionized the game and some of them still refuse to accept their value. And three voters think Ken Griffey Jr. is not worthy of the Hall of Fame.
In short, these idiots need as many checks and balances in place as possible.
Considering how advanced statistics continue to change the way people value a player’s on-field performance, there’s an argument that new information does become available from year-to-year which might change some minds about a player’s HOF worthiness.
The infuriating part is those writers didn’t vote for Jr. because they thought he was unworthy, they just didn’t want his vote to be unanimous.
The conspiracy theory is that’s the reason the reduced the number of years that a player can be on the ballot from 15 year to ten. And I agree with your general sentiment. I just think if there’s ever going to be a serious shift in opinion on the subject, it’ll have to be next year. It seems like it takes a few years to build steam and get to 75% and 2018 is a pretty stacked year.
(I thought of mentioning Pudge… but decided against it for brevity sake.)
A whole lot of weird protocol has emerged in HOF voting. Like knowing someone is worthy, but leaving him off your ballot the first year with full intention to vote for him the second year simply so he can’t be called a “first ballot Hall of Famer” (see: Robbie Alomar). Baseball writers are the WORST.
Way to many voters that is just insane IMO.
This kind of rationale would make me doubt their writing. Thank goodness I don’t bother with these “writers” anymore.
Just like the news it’s become subjective rather then objective. The actual story isn’t enough anymore now we have to inject our own opinions/thoughts/beliefs into it. I blame ESPN and all of the horrible sports opinionated shows it’s spawned. Social media is a close second. Without the ease of making some “writers” opinion widely known nobody would even notice.
You have to remember that the initial voting is being done by baseball writers. The era committees are made up of appointed “baseball people” – executives, writers, ex-players, etc. I think the thought pattern is that the committees will come with a different point of view than the BBWAA.
And based on history, there’s good reason that the Hall re-examines players eligibility. Historically, prejudices and biases held by some members of the BBWAA have kept clear Hall worthy candidates out. The best example I know is probably Larry Doby. So while nothing might change for a guy like Trammell, it doesn’t mean that other players don’t deserve their careers re-evaluated.
And the steroid players are another great example. Right now, sentiment by the establishment is to keep them out. Maybe in ten, twenty, fifty years, people will find the exclusion of the best players of our era to be ridiculous and petty.
Morris is interesting because his candidacy raises the question: how do you value clutch performances in big situations? Should enough of those moments turn a pretty good player into a Hall of Famer? The analytic types seem to generally think no. But even if you can explain it away as a function of the randomness inherent in baseball, it still remains that those moments happened and player X provided Y number of memorable moments.
And I should add: HOF voters aren’t just looking at statistics. To quote: “based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played”.
So while the numbers don’t change, voter’s knowledge and opinions about those other things can.
This is also why the Hall should boot people out. See: Tom Yawkey, Kirby Puckett.
“i forget how many no-hitters ”
Just one.
And I think the clutch narrative for Morris is way overblown. We remember that one game, but the very next year he took both losses the Jays had in the World Series, including getting bombed in what would have been the clincher. There’s no evidence that he was a big game pitcher other than our selective memory. 3.90 regular season ERA, 3.80 postseason ERA. He was a pretty darn good pitcher, he was not the guy you chose above all else when you needed a win in a big game.
The voting committee isn’t limited to a number of votes to divvy up among the worthy players. They can simply vote as it should be – a simple yes or no on each guy.
hi STEVE … good post. i know where you’re coming from , but the most wins in the 80’s & 4 world series rings speaks volumes.
“that said, he was arguably the best at that one dimension. ”
Also a near .400 OBP, so two dimensions.
And this is where those fancy advanced analytics help us out a lot. It helps us determine how to compare a guy who was at the top of OBP and SLG lists to a guy who was, say, at the top of AVG and SB lists. Being number 10 on the HR list is not the same as being number 10 on the SB list.
… and i may be a homer , but i would indeed not hesitate to give him the ball in a big game.
And Guerrero. I’m very interested to see how he does. In his prime, he seemed like a HoF lock. Now, very borderline. And in 2018 we add a few more big names. I don’t think we’re close to cleaning up the ballot.
… and i don’t know the answer for sure , but i’d be willing to better any pitcher in the history of baseball who won the most games in a decade is in the hall of fame.
The most wins in the 80s only says to me that his career nicely overlapped the decade. Does anybody know or care who led MLB in wins from 85-94? Why should that be less useful a metric?
And two of those four WS wins came when he was an 86 ERA+ guy for the Blue Jays. I’ll give him some postseason credit, but it seems a bit cloudly to apply the label “four rings” without much understanding of how those came about.