2013 MLB Hall of Fame Screechfest

Oh, my God! Craig Biggio didn't get into the Hall of Fame on his first try! CRAIG BIGGIO!!!

 

Like I said, I don't think Biggio is the strongest candidate to come down the pike. But if he's a Hall of Famer in 2014, he's a Hall of Famer in 2013.

 

Again, this is just not necessarily true. Sometimes voters want to see how an era shakes out, in its entirety. They want to see a player's peers stack up when all is said and done. With every passing year, the lens is widened on the era. Completely defensible.

 

I think that line of reasoning is a serious stretch, Dick. They're not doing it for that reason. They're doing it because they want to create a Hall of Fame sub-level.

 

Some of them probably are.

That seems OK to me that some sort of culture developed around the voting process.

 

Defensible in a debate, maybe, but completely untrue in real life. This is an offshoot of the same principle that led 1.5 percent of voters not to put Cal Ripken Jr. on their ballot the first time out. No, it didn't ultimately make a difference in the history of the Hall. But now that the discussion has focused on the BBWAA's hyperinflated sense of self-importance, it's a very worthy example. And it's the mindset that fed what happened this week.

 

Looked it up ... 6.60 votes per ballot was second highest total in the past 20 years.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hall-of-fame-ballot-history.shtml

 

One reason people's vote totals go up is because people change their minds.

Have you ever looked at something then discussed it with your friends or read other opinions and changed your mind?

I think it's good that people re evaluate candidates every year they are on the ballot. I actually feel a little guilty when I don't.

Sheesh.

 

I've got to imagine that when a voter sees that a player's vote total was surprisingly high, he might take another look at that player, right? I suppose it's not exactly a triumph of independent thinking, but if 70 percent of your peers seem to think a guy belongs in the HOF, you might start to think that maybe you're the one who was wrong, not the other way around.

 

I have never understood this.

You have five years to look at a guy in the abstract. Then when you get the ballot, you have another couple of months. Then you go through the same thing for another 14 years. How many re-evaluations do you need?

I was happy that Jim Rice eventually got to the Hall of Fame. But what in the world could have possibly happened to make him better in 2009 than he was in 2001?

 

He became more feared?

 

For one thing, the electorate wasn't the same in 2001 as it was eight years later. It's fluid.

What I'm circling around is that there isn't one reason here that vote totals fluctuate. It's not all punitive or an attempt to create sub-levels of the HOF.

Some reasons:

(1) Yes, an attempt to create sub-levels to the HOF;
(2) Fluid electorate;
(3) Tendency to vote first for players who have been on the ballot the longest;
(4) Waiting to see how entire era shapes up;
(5) Evolving understanding of the game;
(6) Peer pressure, i.e. seeing which way the wind is blowing on a player, and wanting to be on the side that's winning, essentially. Or re-considering one's own stance when it differs from others.

My prediction: You will see lss fluctuation in individuals' vote totals as time goes on. It has actually already begun. Bagwell and Biggio would have started preposterously low just a couple decades ago. Look at Duke Snider's progression. That would never happen again.

Voters are better now, not worse.