Baseball HOF Voting:Who Should Do The Voting?

[Noles939913]

Originally Posted by Sal316

The current system works fine, just cut out the cronyism with the Vets committee. HOF voters should also have term limits. There is no reason someone who voted in Babe Ruth should have a say on players from the current era, as an example. They have an antiquated way of viewing players and don't take into account, or just don't care for, the evolution of the game. The game changes, and you have to take into account the player's effect on the era THEY play in, not judge them against previous eras.

If they let Ortiz in, then every player suspected or found to have taken PEDs should be automatically voted in. Anything less than that would be a joke.

Pete Rose for '22!

Wait what? The fact Babe Ruth only got 95% of the vote is the real crime. Also I’m pretty sure no one who voted for Ruth is still alive.

[jlzinck]

Originally Posted by Sal316

The current system works fine, just cut out the cronyism with the Vets committee. HOF voters should also have term limits. There is no reason someone who voted in Babe Ruth should have a say on players from the current era, as an example. They have an antiquated way of viewing players and don't take into account, or just don't care for, the evolution of the game. The game changes, and you have to take into account the player's effect on the era THEY play in, not judge them against previous eras.

If they let Ortiz in, then every player suspected or found to have taken PEDs should be automatically voted in. Anything less than that would be a joke.

Pete Rose for '22!

You can always tell the Yankee fans

I think the Twitterverse should choose

[Silent George]

Originally Posted by jlzinck

You can always tell the Yankee fans

I think the Twitterverse should choose

I think you’re more advertising your bias.

I’m no Yankees fan, and I mostly agree.

If Ortiz gets in, I see zero reason why Sosa, McGwire, Bonds, Clemens, Sheffield, don’t get in. They were all better players. I could see drawing the line at people actually suspended for it.

I think Ortiz will get in. I think probably first ballot. And I’m good with that personally. What I’m not going to be good with is the hypocrisy of how the super popular guy playing in mega market Boston is somehow 1st ballot worthy and 2003 doesn’t matter for him but somehow Sammy Sosa’s 2003 rumors keep
him out. And this will be in every Hall article published this year.

[sickmantz]

The BBWAA should do it. But they need to be more judicious about who they allow into the association and who is allowed to stay.

The worst voters are the ones that don't cover baseball anymore.

[Handsome Wes]

Originally Posted by marl1220

This is just my opinion, but I don't want fans to have anything to say about who gets, or doesn't get, in to the HOF. Just look at the AS game. It's a joke. It's a flawed system as it is, but I don't think there is a a perfect system.

Fair point, but at the same time I remember when Dan LeBatard opened up his ballot and voted for whoever crossed 50%. And... it was... totally reasonable (even though he got banned from future voting because of it).

Jay Jaffe has done the same on Fangraphs with a Crowdsourced ballot. And they've done a good job.

But yeah, I see what you're saying that you don't want those situations like we've seen with the All-Stars getting, like, six players from Kansas City or something. But that's why I would say that the fans vote represents just one of several different votes that determine who gets inducted.

[Handsome Wes]

Originally Posted by sickmantz

The BBWAA should do it. But they need to be more judicious about who they allow into the association and who is allowed to stay.

The worst voters are the ones that don't cover baseball anymore.

The worst ones are the ones that combine idiocy with sanctimony. That's not exclusive to just the ones that don't cover baseball anymore.

[Silent George]

Originally Posted by Handsome Wes

Fair point, but at the same time I remember when Dan LeBatard opened up his ballot and voted for whoever crossed 50%. And... it was... totally reasonable (even though he got banned from future voting because of it).

Jay Jaffe has done the same on Fangraphs with a Crowdsourced ballot. And they've done a good job.

But yeah, I see what you're saying that you don't want those situations like we've seen with the All-Stars getting, like, six players from Kansas City or something. But that's why I would say that the fans vote represents just one of several different votes that determine who gets inducted.

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/spo...game/28925739/

Started with the Redlegs in 1957. It’s a good story that got the fan vote banned until 1970.

I completely agree about the hesitancy of fans. But also that’s who the hall of fame is for. Baseball fans.

And here’s where the old problem lies. Writers are supposed to be above this sort of thing, and know baseball really well because it’s their job and their expertise. But we still get Jim Rice over far better outfielders. We still get Ted Simmons out after one ballot.

So fans are idiots. And the writers? They aren’t much better. And I agree. The outsourced ballots were just fine, a lot better than many of the writers. Only issue I have is that this stuff definitely sways to younger crowd group think. You’d have a 19 year old college kid with nothing but time submitting 40,000 votes while a 58 year old is busy with a job and a life and won’t have time to boring a trillion times.

[Sal316]

Originally Posted by mfw13

...Because let's face it....if your first year on the ballot 3/4 of the voters don't think you're a HOFer, then you aren't an HOFer.

This right here. It does not take 10-15 years of yearly voting, or a committee of your buddies/peers to vote you in 25 years later. You are either a HOFer or you aren't. It really is that simple.

[Handsome Wes]

Originally Posted by Sal316

This right here. It does not take 10-15 years of yearly voting, or a committee of your buddies/peers to vote you in 25 years later. You are either a HOFer or you aren't. It really is that simple.

Ha ha ha, suck it Rogers Hornsby, Joe DiMaggio, Yogi Berra, Mel Ott, Cy Young, Jimmie Foxx, Harmon Killebrew, Lefty Grove, Mike Piazza, Carlton Fisk, Eddie Mathews, Whitey Ford, Grover Alexander, Eddie Collins, Vladimir Guerrero, and all you other slugs who didn't get in on the first ballot. We should melt down your bronze plaques. It really is that simple.

[Silent George]

Originally Posted by Handsome Wes

Ha ha ha, suck it Rogers Hornsby, Joe DiMaggio, Yogi Berra, Mel Ott, Cy Young, Jimmie Foxx, Harmon Killebrew, Lefty Grove, Mike Piazza, Carlton Fisk, Eddie Mathews, Whitey Ford, Grover Alexander, Eddie Collins, Vladimir Guerrero, and all you other slugs who didn't get in on the first ballot. We should melt down your bronze plaques. It really is that simple.

Yeah, when I read the initial take, it was one of those things where it really does sound logical in concept, but doesn't know the history of the voting to know it has been anything but logical.

Again, Babe Ruth got 95% of the vote, not 100. And he finished 2nd to Ty Cobb.

The 1st ever vote was flawed conceptually in a lot of ways - but it did prove that the voters themselves were not a foolproof method of determining who qualifies.

Under this methodology Larry Walker, widely considered a worthy HOF candidate, would have been eliminated in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by sickmantz

The BBWAA should do it. But they need to be more judicious about who they allow into the association and who is allowed to stay.

The worst voters are the ones that don't cover baseball anymore.

Then I guess it is good that the writers who don't currently cover baseball no longer have a HOF vote

[Noles939913]

Originally Posted by sickmantz

The BBWAA should do it. But they need to be more judicious about who they allow into the association and who is allowed to stay.

The worst voters are the ones that don't cover baseball anymore.

You obviously have no clue what you’re talking about.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by rats60

This is nonsense. The Basketball Hall of Fame is not the NBA HOF. It is more like a participation trophy with many members not elected because of their NBA career. A football team has 22 starters, baseball has 9. Those HOF numbers are comparable considering that fact.

Pie Traynor was voted the greatest 3rd baseman of baseballs first 100 years. He is a no brainer for the HOF. He was Brooks Robinson with a better bat, a lifetime .320 hitter. Trammell, Klein, Slaughter, Santo or Slaughter were not more deserving. Those guys are borderline at best. Let me guess, you are using a made up stat like WAR which changes at its creators whim to determine what you think a HOFer is. WAR has no clue about defensive value of players before WWII.

There was a need for a VC to reexamine guys who the writers couldn't elect like Eddie Plank, but it was a disaster from the beginning. The HOF needs to elect worthy candidates, not turn itself into the Basketball HOF.