2014 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

[ReverendBrewmeister]

Greg Maddux (97.2%)

Tom Glavine (91.9%)

Frank Thomas (83.7%)

 

...welcome to the Hall of Fame.

 

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/24402483/greg-maddux-tom-glavine-and-frank-thomas-elected-to-hall-of-fame

 

Official ballot results here: http://bbwaa.com

 

Let the debate commence for those left out, including Craig Biggio (74.6%) and Tim Raines, as well as the "Steroid Era" players.

[Outlander]

Well there were about 20 guys that deserved induction and by electing all first year guys it doesn't ease up the backlog of players on the ballot at all.

[ewitkows]

Bummer Sexson is off the ballot next year

[whizkid]

Three worthy guys. Best part is no Morris.

[JohnBriggs12]

I don't get Piazza being left out. There's never been one iota of evidence he took PED's. That's not to say he didn't but nobody can say with 100% certainty that any player didn't use in that period including the guys who were voted in.

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

Biggio missed by two votes (74.8 percent). Not a huge deal, as I'm sure he'll be in next time, but wow. He's a guy that WAR might not quantify well, as he's "only" at 62 for his career. Of the guys in contention, only Piazza and Morris are lower. Anyway.

 

No real gripes with the three who did get in. Though I have to wonder if Maddux and Glavine ever get frustrated by always being mentioned together. I always thought Maddux was the better player, and Baseball Reference seems to bear that out, though maybe I'm just buying into the pathos of "the guy who doesn't throw hard and still gets outs."

 

EDIT: Just saw that Deadspin "bought" Dan LeBatard's ballot (or, that is, LeBatard agreed to turn over his vote to Deadspin readers) in an attempt to publicize some criticisms of the process. Interesting.

[MVP2110]

I personally love what Deadspin and LeBatard did, if you read his reasoning you realize it wasn't just to mess with the voting but to point out actual flaws in the system. LeBatard just jumped up a bunch in my book

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

I like it too.

 

Plus it's pretty funny to see the ESPN guys quickly try to tear LeBatard down. PTI was pretty all over it today, and so far the internal ESPN stuff has all been negative. Which doesn't surprise me. And, of course, there are plenty of reasons to disagree with "giving away" a vote, but all the negativity isn't really acknowledging some of the deep flaws in the voting process. It's soundbite coverage at its worst.

[JimH5]

I'm surprised that LeBatard is a member of the BBWAA. Whenever I have read his columns, it's been about the Dolphins, or the University of Miami, or the Heat. I used to listen to his radio show podcast, and really enjoyed it. His segments with David Samson were fabulous.

 

That said, being a Hall of Famer is a big deal, so if he's entrusted with deciding who gets to be one, he should take the responsibility seriously. All voters should.

 

The voters clearly got it right with Maddux, Glavine and Thomas. Biggio is closing in, and it's really no dishonor to have to wait. I think Mussina was hosed, but he should pick up votes in the coming years.

[trwi7]

If you look at the ballot that Deadspin put in, it's better than 95% (being generous) of the ballots the other half-wits of the BBWAA put out.

[PrinceFielderx1]

Alan Trammell is HOF'r

[jerichoholicninja]

I can understand the heat that Dan is getting for what he did but there should be more heat placed on the guys who voted for Jacque Jones, Armando Benitez, etc. and the guy who only votes for Jack Morris every year.

[pitchleague]

I can understand the heat that Dan is getting for what he did but there should be more heat placed on the guys who voted for Jacque Jones, Armando Benitez, etc. and the guy who only votes for Jack Morris every year.

 

 

. . . and there's my cue. Here is my yearly copy/paste of why guys like these get votes. And how, one time, it backfired.

 

"Every year, a player is bound to get what is called a "courtesy vote" for the Hall of Fame. This courtesy vote is pretty much an "agreement" by a writer or broadcaster who got to be pretty good friends with a player over the years. When the player then retired, the two of them, knowing full well that the player was not Hall of Fame material but only Hall of Very Good Material, came to an agreement that the writer/broadcaster friend of his would cast a vote for the player so he'd be able to tell his grandchildren that yes, he was given a vote for the Baseball Hall of Fame. It happens all time. In fact, I could probably come to a pretty good guess of who voted for Luis Gonzalez, for example.

 

Luckily, the voters in these cases do their homework now so they don't have a repeat of the Wes Ferrell induction of 1984. It was through the veteran's committee vote, but it still worked out in exactly the same way. Here's the story in case you don't know it:

 

 

"Rick Ferrell was a pretty good catcher form 1929 through 1947, a pretty good farm system director and general manager for Detroit, and, by all accounts, a pretty good guy. Rick played eighteen years (admittedly in eight of these he didn't catch 100 games in a season). He hit .281 lifetime, with twenty-eight career homers. His brother Wes had hit .280 lifetime, with twenty-eight homer. Of course, Wes was a pitcher. While he was still eligible in the writers' balloting, Rick got one vote in 1956, another in 1958, and a third in 1960. For years, reporters covering the Committee on Veterans would tell tales of how its memeber, old sportswriters, players, and executives, would cast 'courtesy votes' for old buddies, knowing full well that these guys would never actually get elected. It was a nice, folksy touch. You know: Hey, Smiley, you didn't get in, but look, I voted for you, old pal, old sport. Everybody was happy but nobody got hurt. Then in 1984, it happened. Apparently everyone case a courtesy vote for Rick Ferrell. Bingo--he's a Hall of Famer."

 

--from The Big Show. Olbermann and Patrick, 1997.

[RockCoCougars]

When Frankie Frisch headed up the vet's committee in the 60's and 70's, he got a bunch of cronies in with borderline credentials.

[JimH5]

I think Olbermann is short-changing Rick Ferrell a bit. He was better than "pretty good". He was an 8-time All Star, and retired as the all time leader in games caught.

 

That doesn't make him a Hall of Famer, and Olbermann is probably right on the surprise way he was elected by the Veteran's Committee, but that was 30 years ago, and they have been more cautious since then.

 

I also don't want to rip Keith Olbermann for his knowledge of baseball history. He's really an expert on the history of the game, and is more qualified than most to offer an opinion on the Hall of Fame and its election process. I just think he was wrong in his assessment of Ferrell in that book.

[jerichoholicninja]

I can understand the heat that Dan is getting for what he did but there should be more heat placed on the guys who voted for Jacque Jones, Armando Benitez, etc. and the guy who only votes for Jack Morris every year.

 

 

. . . and there's my cue. Here is my yearly copy/paste of why guys like these get votes. And how, one time, it backfired.

 

"Every year, a player is bound to get what is called a "courtesy vote" for the Hall of Fame. This courtesy vote is pretty much an "agreement" by a writer or broadcaster who got to be pretty good friends with a player over the years. When the player then retired, the two of them, knowing full well that the player was not Hall of Fame material but only Hall of Very Good Material, came to an agreement that the writer/broadcaster friend of his would cast a vote for the player so he'd be able to tell his grandchildren that yes, he was given a vote for the Baseball Hall of Fame. It happens all time. In fact, I could probably come to a pretty good guess of who voted for Luis Gonzalez, for example.

 

Luckily, the voters in these cases do their homework now so they don't have a repeat of the Wes Ferrell induction of 1984. It was through the veteran's committee vote, but it still worked out in exactly the same way. Here's the story in case you don't know it:

 

 

"Rick Ferrell was a pretty good catcher form 1929 through 1947, a pretty good farm system director and general manager for Detroit, and, by all accounts, a pretty good guy. Rick played eighteen years (admittedly in eight of these he didn't catch 100 games in a season). He hit .281 lifetime, with twenty-eight career homers. His brother Wes had hit .280 lifetime, with twenty-eight homer. Of course, Wes was a pitcher. While he was still eligible in the writers' balloting, Rick got one vote in 1956, another in 1958, and a third in 1960. For years, reporters covering the Committee on Veterans would tell tales of how its memeber, old sportswriters, players, and executives, would cast 'courtesy votes' for old buddies, knowing full well that these guys would never actually get elected. It was a nice, folksy touch. You know: Hey, Smiley, you didn't get in, but look, I voted for you, old pal, old sport. Everybody was happy but nobody got hurt. Then in 1984, it happened. Apparently everyone case a courtesy vote for Rick Ferrell. Bingo--he's a Hall of Famer."

 

--from The Big Show. Olbermann and Patrick, 1997.

 

So doing favors for old buddies makes it ok? Some of these guys shouldn't even be on the ballot.

[Baldkin]

I can understand the heat that Dan is getting for what he did but there should be more heat placed on the guys who voted for Jacque Jones, Armando Benitez, etc. and the guy who only votes for Jack Morris every year.

 

 

When there are 15 or so completely qualified guys who could and should be in the HoF on the ballot, and the average number of votes is barely over 8.... well, you have a problem. It's only going to get worse over the next 3-4 years.

 

Joe Posnanski with a great breakdown here:

 

http://joeposnanski.com/joeblogs/hall-of-fame-recap/

 

Yet another reason why I think all ballots should be public. If you can't defend your choices, you shouldn't be voting.

[Bombers]

This whole Deadspin / Dan Le Betard thing is just comedic to me. I think it is awesome what he did. And now the BBWAA banned him from future votes. Quite frankly, I would rather use the folks of this site to choose whether or not a person goes into the hall of fame than current process used with the BBWAA. Part of an article by Bruce Hooley from ESPN Cleveland is laughable "reporters who cover the game on a daily basis are better informed than fans who follow the sport from afar." ... But where does it say anywhere that the 571 members of the BBWAA are required to watch X amount of games per year? It doesn't, half of these guys casually watch the sport anyhow. Some of the guys don't even cover the sport anymore! But hey, they get a vote.

 

Furthermore, I believe those writers have become distanced from understanding impact vs non impact players. I would guess that half of them don't even have a rudimentary understanding of sabermetrics. To me, guys who dominated over a long enough period of time should be in and it shouldn't be such a hard argument. I just don't see how players like Don Mattingly, Curt Schilling, Mike Mussina, Tim Raines, Kenny Lofton, Mike Piazza are viewed as just "good" players. These guys dominated their sport for an extended period of time and were routinely in the discussion as being one of the best players in their sport at the time they played.

 

To me, fixing of the process is either you are in or you are not. This whole 15 year voting thing is idiotic. A player could conceivably get 75% of all the writers to vote for him, but if it doesn't happen in the exact same year, they are not in. And even waiting the 5 years after a player is done is ridiculous. I think waiting is a bad idea as time allows you to forget their impact. Take a guy like Justin Verlander. He should be a shoe in for the hall, but when the time comes- my guess is he won't be. Even though Verlander has been MVP, CY Young winner ... whatever. 5 years after he is done playing, it will be forgotten and will just be another guy not in the hall.

 

23 people didn't vote for Willie Mays. Do those 23 people honestly think he should be kicked out? I would guess not. They just didn't vote for him as they were peeved from a prior year vote or wanted to max their votes on other people knowing he was going to make it anyhow. So why not just say yay or nay?

[jerichoholicninja]

So why not just say yay or nay?

 

Totally agree with this. The vote shouldn't be "pick the best 10 or so." It should be "is this guy a HOF'er, yes or no?"

[SRB]

Sadly the Hall of Fame became an irrelevant joke the minute Barry Bonds wasn't a unanimous first year induction. It's obnoxious, know-nothing writers voting based on their personal attitudes toward players and/or their personal hunches about what players did or did not do decades ago.

 

And both sides of the stats debate have just become tiresome and based on personal grudges (e.g. why is voting for Jack Morris such an outrage, but voting for Tom Glavine isn't, when the latter had a worse career FIP and was likely only able to have a longer career due to better medical care in the 2000s?)

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

Great post, Bombers.

 

Regarding the voting portion of the BBWA, I think some of your points illustrate the systemic flaws of the process. One issue is that the national writers get to watch a lot of games, but a lot of the time it's the same teams. We don't need to talk about media bias regarding the big markets, but I think it's a problem. When your job is to attract readers, why would your publication want you spending time watching and studying the Rays, for example? Where's the money?

 

Then there are the beat writers who focus all their attention on one team. This means they get a lot to see a lot of games, but are heavily predisposed toward one league or the other. And often working to connect with a particular fan base.

 

In both cases, I think the writer in question is only getting part of the picture. This isn't to say that there aren't awesome, knowledgeable voters out there. Just to note that it takes a lot of effort to go beyond your specific job description and research a larger, more nuanced picture.

 

This is what makes the Deadspin thing interesting to me. Sites like Fangraphs can get pretty creative about "crowdsourcing" and produce some darn good information precisely because they are outside the mainstream media. They can also put the perspectives of individual fans in conversation with each other and give an active reader a whole lot to think about. I'm not sure the BBWA is really set up to do that.

 

Eventually, the younger generation of writers will likely bring more knowledge of advanced metrics, but, unless the system changes, they'll still be part of a traditional media structure. I think that's a problem for the Hall.

[RightFieldCoder]

And even waiting the 5 years after a player is done is ridiculous. I think waiting is a bad idea as time allows you to forget their impact.

 

It's to make sure they are really done. What would happen if a guy is elected to the Hall and he decides to make a comeback? If a guy is forgotten after five years, he was not worthy to be in.

[JimH5]

And even waiting the 5 years after a player is done is ridiculous. I think waiting is a bad idea as time allows you to forget their impact.

 

It's to make sure they are really done. What would happen if a guy is elected to the Hall and he decides to make a comeback? If a guy is forgotten after five years, he was not worthy to be in.

 

FYI--Jim Palmer tried to pull it off.

 

In 1991, seven years after he retired, and after he was a Hall of Famer, he went to Spring Training with the Orioles in hopes of making it back as a relief pitcher.

 

He didn't have anything left and was banged around in a spring training game, and hung them up for good. It would have been awesome if he made it back, but he was done.

 

http://seamheads.com/2010/02/08/jim-palmers-attempted-comeback/

[Bombers]

Thanks Cool Hand. I agree the younger generation will hopefully bring some improvement to it. We can all hope.

[owbc]

I don't understand the criticism of the voters. Using the 75% criteria, the Deadspin fans basically agreed with the BBWAA. So having a fan vote would change nothing, ultimately it is the super-majority 3/4 vote that is the issue. It's also why the HOF is such a "hallowed" place because getting 75% of the vote for anything is hard.

 

The other huge problem is that there are no criteria. Everyone just compares the candidates to previous HOFers, but there is room for debate on almost everyone. This has always been an issue on things such as the unanimous first ballot, but now that 1/3 of voters think that anyone even remotely linked to PEDs is out, the ballot has gotten clogged and the flawed process is apparent to everyone.

 

The easy solution is to just get rid of the super-majority: 50.1% and you're in. There will still be disagreements, but those groups will actually be in the minority.