Baseball HOF Voting:Who Should Do The Voting?

[MOONBASE1]

The sports writers do it now. But could there be a better way? How should it be done? Mix of writers and...?

[Silent George]

Baseball writers were chosen because in the days before TV and mostly in the days before radio, they were the only parties that could reliably be said to have seen all the greats day in and day out, at least for one league. The theory that they could offer the best perspective was probably correct at the time.

It isn’t now. In fact the more information we get the more we learn that the writers aren’t baseball sages at all. There’s an awful lot of bad thinkers who stumbled into baseball positions. If you were making a new hall of fame today, I think you’d assemble a blue ribbon panel by application. The most respected figures of baseball both from in the game and in the media and historians and such. I think a lot of processes would be different. I’d probably tell them to select two or three a year from all of history and be done with vets ballots. Something like that.

But the hall for the most part has always been 75% from writers 75% from a vets committee. Since the first vote, with very few exceptions. Some things have changed, especially the design of the vets committees, but pretty much Babe Ruth had to meet the same standards David Ortiz does next year. There’s a lot of value to that. A lot of value in not having an asterisk for players getting in under different rules.

Baseball also has by far the best and most cherished hall of fame, and so I see why it wouldn’t change….

(But the one thing that drives me bonkers is how many players we elect after death. Or so old they can barely enjoy it. And dropping the threshold to 50% would not change much at all about who is in. But it would drastically change how long players got the honor for. The Ron Santos of the world deserve better)

[hxcmilkshake]

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

[rats60]

The writers have done a good job for the most part. They have had a few misses, Eddie Plank, Arky Vaughan, Johnny Mize. When the other "experts" were added to the mix we got Harold Baines, Lee Smith, Jack Morris, Rube Marquard, Jesse Haines, Rick Ferrell, Ray Schalk, Jim Bottomley, High Pockets Kelly, Red Schoendienst, Freddie Lindstrom, Travis Jackson, Chick Hafey, Ross Youngs, Tommy McCarthy and a bunch of borderline guys.

[Silent George]

Originally Posted by rats60

The writers have done a good job for the most part. They have had a few misses, Eddie Plank, Arky Vaughan, Johnny Mize. When the other "experts" were added to the mix we got Harold Baines, Lee Smith, Jack Morris, Rube Marquard, Jesse Haines, Rick Ferrell, Ray Schalk, Jim Bottomley, High Pockets Kelly, Red Schoendienst, Freddie Lindstrom, Travis Jackson, Chick Hafey, Ross Youngs, Tommy McCarthy and a bunch of borderline guys.

The entire reason the vets committee exists is because the writers do such poor jobs of picking hall of famers.

It’s not hard to conclude Jeter is a HOF. That’s not a good job, that’s an obvious job.

And Jeter went in with Ted Simmons, now universally praised as a deserving HOF, didn’t get 5% on his only time on the ballot.

If there was a holiday HOF the writers would be really good at figuring out Christmas is deserving, but start fumbling all over Thanksgiving and everything else.

[ThoseBackPages]

Blowout Members that have been here over 5 years

[kykid4uk]

Originally Posted by Silent George

The entire reason the vets committee exists is because the writers do such poor jobs of picking hall of famers.

It’s not hard to conclude Jeter is a HOF. That’s not a good job, that’s an obvious job.

And Jeter went in with Ted Simmons, now universally praised as a deserving HOF, didn’t get 5% on his only time on the ballot.

If there was a holiday HOF the writers would be really good at figuring out Christmas is deserving, but start fumbling all over Thanksgiving and everything else.

Sorry, but that's pure nonsense. It's trendy to hate on the media, but the baseball writers, for the most part, have done a good job.

As someone else pointed out, the "worst" additions to the Hall of Fame have almost all come from the veterans committee.

[Silent George]

Originally Posted by kykid4uk

Sorry, but that's pure nonsense. It's trendy to hate on the media, but the baseball writers, for the most part, have done a good job.

As someone else pointed out, the "worst" additions to the Hall of Fame have almost all come from the veterans committee.

It’s like giving a team the first ten picks in a draft and then praising them for having good draft picks.

Yeah most of the bad players have been vets committee. The vets committee deals with leftovers. Duh.

The writers have historically elected so few players the hall would suffer without more names.

NBA - 177
NFL - 346
NHL - 289

MLB - 263, 134 by the writers

Each of the above sports have far newer professional leagues and far newer halls of fame.

The NBA, above, didn’t start HoF votes until 1959, has far newer professional leagues to pick from, and has a total of 5 starters on much smaller teams. Give the sports equal years and equal players, the % elected in baseball is far smaller. When considering writers alone, it’s scant.

So the HOF, needing press, needing business, has relied on the vets committee to make up for the writers. And the vets committee is criticized for choosing the lesser of players as though they also wouldn’t have voted for Babe Ruth or something.

Instead when you’re too dumb to elect Trammell, or Chuck Klein, or Enos Slaughter and the Hall needs more and more players for its own health, you go to vets.

Meanwhile Rabbit Maranville, Pie Traynor, Herb Pennock, Hoyt Wilhelm, Catfish Hunter, etc.

Yes some players are in from the vets committee that don’t deserve it over others. If you adjust baseball to the other sports the number of undeserving players shrinks significantly. And the vets are putting in players, many clearly deserving, that the writers failed on for 10-15 years while they were busy being the stingiest hall voters in the major sports.

But no, the writers have literally not (historically) done their job. The lack of elected players has led to endless changes and adjustments to get more and more players elected specifically because the writers haven’t done it. If the writers HAD elected enough, vets committees wouldn’t exist or would be vastly different. Instead there is a vote every year and 4/5 of those years are for players missed by the hall in the last 25 years alone.

[majestik101]

Robots.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by majestik101

Robots.

Lol you beat me to it. Let's just steadily replace everything with robots and computers.

Don't like your wife? Replace her with a robot. She won't give you back talk and she'll do anything -- anything!

[rwperu34]

Originally Posted by hxcmilkshake

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

I second this!

[fulltritty]

I don't have an issue with who the sports writers have been voting in lately. The veterans committee seems to let slide too many people who were borderline in instead of realizing why they were borderline. To me, borderline does not mean greatness.

I think MLB or the Hall should have clarified yeah or nay on the more recent steroid users instead of leaving it up to the writers to decide. I think that issue is why the writers take a lot of flak for their voting.

[123precision]

In short, a committee with retired players, coaches, national sportswriters, and one lucky fan (which changes year to year and selected through an interview process).

Everyone is biased.

Let all the roid era players in.

Let the gamblers in.

Base it solely on statistics on the field. This is baseball HOF not moral person/high character/no skeletons in the closet HOF.

[mrb842]

the writers do a much better job than the other leagues. The NBA is a joke and a meaningless HOF, the NFL one is basically local writers scratching the backs of the guys they've covered and also worked on book projects with. The stinginess of the MLB HOF is what makes it a real honor.

[BlowoutBuzz]

Originally Posted by Silent George

The entire reason the vets committee exists is because the writers do such poor jobs of picking hall of famers.

And yet, historically, the worst Hall of Famers are ones who were picked by the committee.

[marl1220]

Originally Posted by Silent George

It’s like giving a team the first ten picks in a draft and then praising them for having good draft picks.

Yeah most of the bad players have been vets committee. The vets committee deals with leftovers. Duh.

The writers have historically elected so few players the hall would suffer without more names.

NBA - 177
NFL - 346
NHL - 289

MLB - 263, 134 by the writers

Each of the above sports have far newer professional leagues and far newer halls of fame.

The NBA, above, didn’t start HoF votes until 1959, has far newer professional leagues to pick from, and has a total of 5 starters on much smaller teams. Give the sports equal years and equal players, the % elected in baseball is far smaller. When considering writers alone, it’s scant.

So the HOF, needing press, needing business, has relied on the vets committee to make up for the writers. And the vets committee is criticized for choosing the lesser of players as though they also wouldn’t have voted for Babe Ruth or something.

Instead when you’re too dumb to elect Trammell, or Chuck Klein, or Enos Slaughter and the Hall needs more and more players for its own health, you go to vets.

Meanwhile Rabbit Maranville, Pie Traynor, Herb Pennock, Hoyt Wilhelm, Catfish Hunter, etc.

Yes some players are in from the vets committee that don’t deserve it over others. If you adjust baseball to the other sports the number of undeserving players shrinks significantly. And the vets are putting in players, many clearly deserving, that the writers failed on for 10-15 years while they were busy being the stingiest hall voters in the major sports.

But no, the writers have literally not (historically) done their job. The lack of elected players has led to endless changes and adjustments to get more and more players elected specifically because the writers haven’t done it. If the writers HAD elected enough, vets committees wouldn’t exist or would be vastly different. Instead there is a vote every year and 4/5 of those years are for players missed by the hall in the last 25 years alone.

So someone is holding a gun to their heads saying they HAVE TO put them in.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Silent George

It’s like giving a team the first ten picks in a draft and then praising them for having good draft picks.

Yeah most of the bad players have been vets committee. The vets committee deals with leftovers. Duh.

The writers have historically elected so few players the hall would suffer without more names.

NBA - 177
NFL - 346
NHL - 289

MLB - 263, 134 by the writers

Each of the above sports have far newer professional leagues and far newer halls of fame.

The NBA, above, didn’t start HoF votes until 1959, has far newer professional leagues to pick from, and has a total of 5 starters on much smaller teams. Give the sports equal years and equal players, the % elected in baseball is far smaller. When considering writers alone, it’s scant.

So the HOF, needing press, needing business, has relied on the vets committee to make up for the writers. And the vets committee is criticized for choosing the lesser of players as though they also wouldn’t have voted for Babe Ruth or something.

Instead when you’re too dumb to elect Trammell, or Chuck Klein, or Enos Slaughter and the Hall needs more and more players for its own health, you go to vets.

Meanwhile Rabbit Maranville, Pie Traynor, Herb Pennock, Hoyt Wilhelm, Catfish Hunter, etc.

Yes some players are in from the vets committee that don’t deserve it over others. If you adjust baseball to the other sports the number of undeserving players shrinks significantly. And the vets are putting in players, many clearly deserving, that the writers failed on for 10-15 years while they were busy being the stingiest hall voters in the major sports.

But no, the writers have literally not (historically) done their job. The lack of elected players has led to endless changes and adjustments to get more and more players elected specifically because the writers haven’t done it. If the writers HAD elected enough, vets committees wouldn’t exist or would be vastly different. Instead there is a vote every year and 4/5 of those years are for players missed by the hall in the last 25 years alone.

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.

[Retired hobbist]

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.

The basketball hall of fame is joke it's similar to the boxing hall of fame who elected an actor who played a fictional boxer.

The Raptors have a super fan who uses his home attendance streak to sell import cars. He was elected to the hall of fame in the non participants category.

What a total joke...

[SupermanBrandon]

Who ever says the FANS...should automatically be booted from BO, from the hobby and have their cable & internet wires cut. Fans are morons (yes, Im a fan)! They have no business in voting for something so prestigious and important. 99.9% of those fans have zero clue what it takes to compete at that level, what it means, etc.

[mfw13]

The current members of the HOF....

[Silent George]

Originally Posted by BlowoutBuzz

And yet, historically, the worst Hall of Famers are ones who were picked by the committee.

As I already stated - this is obviously logical. The best players - the players that require absolutely no thought on if they should be elected or not - are given 10, previously 15, 20, 30, unlimited times to get enough votes to get elected by the writers. Of COURSE the worst players are picked by the vets committee. They are LEFT WITH THE WORST PLAYERS.

It took writers 4 freaking years to figure out Joe Dimaggio was a hall of famer. Good job writers! the year before they elected Rabbit Maranville with Joe falling short. Hank Greenberg! 9 votes!

In the 60s the writers were electing so few players the Hall had to force them by having run off votes.

If you don't like who the vets committee chooses - that's all the more reason to complain the writers didn't get it right. They necessitate the vets committee existing.

Does the vets committee selections hurt the hall? No. Or the hall would stop change them. The Hall has only changed the vets committee in efforts to get more players in.

Do angry fans no longer care about the Hall because of Baines? No. Here we are still passionately talking about the hall. Just like when Jack Morris was elected. Just like with Jim Rice, Andre Dawson, Bert Blyleven, and every other HOF war there's ever been. There wasn't one fewer person who wanted to travel to Cooperstown to watch Jeter get inducted because Baines was in the Hall. Ray Schalk has been in the hall of fame since the 50s.

Now you can be small hall or big hall or medium, or what have you. That's your preference. But the numbers show baseball IS a small hall. And it's a tiny hall if you only include the writers. And the Hall - shockingly - needs money. Like anyone else. They are a not for profit, but they need cash. And cash comes with inductees standing on the stage, and press covering them, etc.

Between 1957 and 1967, the writers - without being forced with a run off - elected 3 players. 2 in the same year. The Hall couldn't survive that without the veterans committee.

The writers are doing better today, of course - but this really means electing players the same caliber as the ones the vets committee was putting in. Larry Walker doesn't stand a chance with the writers a few decades ago. Roy Halladay, Vlad Guerrero, Trevor Hoffman - these are all vets committee selections in the past. They are voted in now because of the set standards - standards STILL higher than in other sports.

And the writers are in a 1 year lull that is very likely to extend to 2 years and maybe more until Beltre comes. I doubt it, I think Rolen will get in in the next 2 years, and I think Ortiz will overcome his peds, but the candidates on there right now are all being moralized about, and it's yet another problem with the writer's brain trust that will once again kill off and delay more inductions.

And yes, I'd rather have all of the deserving candidates in and honored and have some non-deserving make it too if that's what it takes, then have players like Lou Whitaker sit out is life not getting honored. That's me, and that's my subjective opinion, - but when Lou does get in, I'll be praising the vets committee, and happy they are around, because the writers screwed that up royally. And he's far from the only one.

[Silent George]

Originally Posted by marl1220

So someone is holding a gun to their heads saying they HAVE TO put them in.

what on earth?

No. The Hall of fame and who qualifies is a subjective thing. The Hall of fame decides how it wants to let people in. It's decided again and again the writers don't elect enough.

So if the writers only elected Babe Ruth.

And then vets committee then puts in Ted Williams.

Now the vets committee is responsible for the worst player in the hall of fame.

No guns, or whatever strawmen made up things you throw out are. Just a basic simple matter of fact. The Hall wants more players. Baseball is stricter than any other sport. And if you add more players, they are generally going to be worse than the easy selections. Duh. And if the vets committee doesn't elect players, as they have done multiple times too, the Hall reworks them to make it more likely they do. This really isn't hard. And it requires no firearms.

[solt0131]

Fanatics.

[ottobord]

25% Fans through an interview process
25% Retired Players
25% Writers, announcers
25% Team owners, gm's, front office

[Silent George]

Originally Posted by solt0131

Fanatics.

Nice. This is what’s going to happen anyway.