2014 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

[Bombers]

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.

It's not just criticism of the voters but the process too. However, comments like the one the Cleveland writer wrote in my previous post is a little short sighted. There are many fans that have a lot more insight and probably watch more baseball than some of the 571 members of BBWAA. But the biggest gripe with the 75% vote is it isn't a simple yes or no. You only get 10 votes and some writers only list one name or none at all. Like the guy who voted only for Morris. Does he honestly think that every other person on that list is a no? If so I would really love to hear his argument and quite frankly maybe he should be banned from future votes. Voters like him are doing a bigger injustice than giving the fans a small voting fraction of 1 / 571.

 

It goes back to my point of do the 23 people who didn't vote for Willie Mays actually think he should be kicked out? Or were their votes just used elsewhere because of some useless restriction? IMO, just go with a simple yes or no on everyone. (You can even keep the percentage 50%, 60%, 75%, whichever but if you force them to say yes or no, I think we would get better results)

 

On a side note if we did use just the Deadspin fan vote then Piazza and Biggio would also be in. (in addition to the 3 who made it.) If we use your idea of anyone over 50%, we would be adding Edgar Martinez, Jeff Bagwell, Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Curt Schilling, Tim Raines, Mark McGwire, and Don Mattingly. I am not saying we turn this thing over to a complete fan vote as clearly larger markets would get larger voices.

 

I don't think there is a silver bullet but there is clearly a problem. And my biggest gripe when there is such an obvious issue, is the reluctance by those in power to do anything about it. They would rather save face and just ignore it and then actually do something to correct it.

[young guns]

The guy who only had Morris said he didn't want to vote for anyone from "the steroids era". He also said he is done after this year.

[jjkoestler]

The guy who only had Morris said he didn't want to vote for anyone from "the steroids era". He also said he is done after this year.

 

Good riddance. Give Bill James his vote.

[RockCoCougars]

I guess that I don't get all the uproar about this. First of all, any time you get a large group of 500 some people together, you are bound to get some idiots. From my experience, on average, sports writers seem more sanctimonious and come off as know it all's more than the average person, so it shouldn't be a surprise that some decide that their vote will be some type of statement. As for LeBetard, I'm glad they stripped him of his voting privileges. I have no doubt that this was a publicity stunt on his part... I'm not a fan of his at all, he likes to interject himself into things..definitely an attention (I'll be nice and say) seeker. Bottom line, the voting system has always been a bit flawed for better or worse- if nothing else, it sparks fun debates such as this one. As for the 100% thing, it's gotten to be a self fulfilling prophecy. I'd be willing to bet that no one will ever attain it for the simple reason that "(insert any baseball immortal) didn't even get 100%".

 

For what it's worth, I think the writers did OK with this vote. In my view, cheaters like Bonds and Clemens have no business in the Hall, and I believe that if you took a vote with baseball fans, the split would be very similar to how the writers voted.

[MVP2110]

 

For what it's worth, I think the writers did OK with this vote. In my view, cheaters like Bonds and Clemens have no business in the Hall, and I believe that if you took a vote with baseball fans, the split would be very similar to how the writers voted.

 

Not quite, if you go off of the deadspin vote Bonds & Clemens got almost 20% more of a vote by the fans

[JimH5]

I guess that I don't get all the uproar about this. First of all, any time you get a large group of 500 some people together, you are bound to get some idiots. From my experience, on average, sports writers seem more sanctimonious and come off as know it all's more than the average person, so it shouldn't be a surprise that some decide that their vote will be some type of statement. As for LeBetard, I'm glad they stripped him of his voting privileges. I have no doubt that this was a publicity stunt on his part... I'm not a fan of his at all, he likes to interject himself into things..definitely an attention (I'll be nice and say) seeker. Bottom line, the voting system has always been a bit flawed for better or worse- if nothing else, it sparks fun debates such as this one. As for the 100% thing, it's gotten to be a self fulfilling prophecy. I'd be willing to bet that no one will ever attain it for the simple reason that "(insert any baseball immortal) didn't even get 100%".

 

For what it's worth, I think the writers did OK with this vote. In my view, cheaters like Bonds and Clemens have no business in the Hall, and I believe that if you took a vote with baseball fans, the split would be very similar to how the writers voted.

 

I am in complete agreement with everything in your post.

[joepepsi]

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.

Don Mattingly had 6 good seasons (years 2-7) and was average after that. He only had 4 seasons where his slugging was over .500. He was a dominant, impact player for his first few years in the league, but faded fast and hard, only average or below hitter for a 1B after that 6 year run. He averaged 40 doubles and 20 hrs a year for his career.

He only played 14 years and if he wasn't a Yankee he would never have been considered for the HOF. We probably all agree Fred McGriff deserves to be in, but we certainly don't see the media pining for him like they do for Mattingly. Few consider Keith Hernandez, John Olerud, or even Kent Hrbek HOF'ers, but they had equally productive careers and very good peak seasons as well.

[RockCoCougars]

Mattingly is a tough one for me. He was the absolute best player in the game for a five year stretch. If he doesn't have those back problems, I'm guessing there wouldn't even be a debate.

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

I think the results we got this time were pretty darn good, and I don't think a purely fan vote is the answer. I am in agreement with some here, though, in that the process as its constructed allows for a lot of inconsistency. Some of this is unavoidable.

 

But one easy fix (advocated by Jonah Keri over at Grantland) is just to remove the ten player limit. Perhaps the biggest reason for complaint comes from folks who get dropped off the ballot for failing to get 5% in a particularly strong year. Say you're Moises Alou. I don't think he's a Hall of Famer, but I think he's a lot close than 1.1 percent of the vote. Now, after one year, he's gone. The same goes for Palmeiro and even Luis Gonzalez. Guys with some good numbers, some great seasons, and certainly some major flaws as well. But they're pushed out of the conversation before it even takes off (Palmeiro was done in more by his finger-wagging embarrassment than anything--there really isn't another way to explain guys like Sosa and McGwire getting so much more of the vote). Removing the limit at least gives voters that extra wiggle room in a great year.

 

Albert Belle is another example. Never got the requisite vote numbers to remain on the ballot. Kirby Puckett, with similar if slightly better career numbers, was a first ballot guy. Personality has to be an issue there, and maybe it should be. But, at the very least, it's inconsistently applied. A great player who gets along with the writers is much more likely to be voted in than a jerk with similar numbers.

 

These aren't life or death issues. But I do think the flaws in this system correspond to the more general flaws in the sports media (and even in the news media). Certain values get prized, certain criteria are inconsistently applied, and what you get is a flawed consensus about what a career or a story or a number means. The trouble isn't that the consensus is flawed. It's that it seems to inevitably become the dominant narrative.

[Fear The Chorizo]

The guy who only had Morris said he didn't want to vote for anyone from "the steroids era". He also said he is done after this year.

 

Someone should remind that guy that part of Morris' career occurred during "the steroids era", so he pretty much crapped himself on that soap box stand.

 

from the dead ball era, to racial segregation, to greenies, to steroids....the baseball HOF is full of guys who don't deserve to be in from many eras for many reasons. The reason the HOF has become such a farce is because of how delusional the voting block of writers has become, although the writers have always been delusional...for one reason or another.

 

The combination of weird voting rules, personal/professional relationships & grudges, silly voter habits, and never-ending conflict of interest situations have made the whole process looks stupid for everyone involved...players, writers, veteran committee members, HOF members, and the media who cover it all. To me it's a shining example of why sports shouldn't have as big an impact on society as they do today. What's ironic is the people who tend to shout the loudest about the steroid era clouding the game and the HOF are often the same people who could have made a difference by drawing attention to PED malfeasance during its heyday - not knowing, turning a blind eye, or acting righteously ignorant is poor form for the many who have plenty to opine about now, but had nothing to say when it could have made a difference.

[djoctagone]

wow. greg maddux's hat on his hall of fame plaque will have no logo.

[jerichoholicninja]

wow. greg maddux's hat on his hall of fame plaque will have no logo.

 

I was curious as to what it would have. Braves would make sense but the Cubs would too.

[JimH5]

There are several Hall of Famers who have plaques without logos.

 

With Maddux and LaRussa, they each had enough of an impact with more than one team to leave their caps blank. The plaques themselves will have a record of who they were with during their careers--like with all Hall of Famers.

 

I don't think it's really a big deal. They're honoring the men.