Baseball Hall of Fame ballot released

I don't have that much of a problem with the second group. I can respect a voter re-examining the evidence about a certain player and changing his mind. It's the "Hall Within the Hall" group that pisses me off.

As one of the SportsJournalists.com members that has a vote stated earlier on this thread -- is the guy a Hall of Famer or not? That is the criteria. None of the other bullshit (first ballot or not, refusing to allow anybody to be unanimous, not liking the guy) should be a factor.

 

Well, you could. But then you get into some of the more advanced statistics work - EQA, WARP, VORP - that, while I like, is clearly a tough sell on others. Also, I'm not sure why you would want to compare the two, since they didn't play the same position and were in somewhat different eras.

 

It's a good thing the popular vote doesn't mean anything for the Presidential election in the United States.

 

As I said earlier, some of you on here and disparaging an entire body of voters based upon the actions of a very small percentage.

I do believe there are voters who refuse to vote for anyone on the first ballot, but I have yet to meet one of them or read something where they describe themselves as such. Let's say there are 10 guys out of 539 who hold that opinion, does that make the whole process broken?

I know a lot of HOF voters, and every one of them puts a lot of thought into his or her ballot. I guarantee you, it's more thought than players put into voting for the All-Star team or coaches do for the Gold Glove. (I've seen them filling those out, sitting together at a table, and saying: "Who should I put for second base?")

Obviously it doesn't look good if Alomar doesn't get in, because he deserved to get in, but he got 73.7 percent of the vote, which is an overwhelming majority.

 

Well, part of the process from the very beginning has been the 15-year eligibility period. Those who cry that "If he's a Hall of Famer in year 2, he's a Hall of Famer in year 1!" apparently would have everyone eligible for just ONE ballot, one year, their fate forever determined by that.

They give voters 15 years to assess, evaluate, reconsider, whatever. I think those protecting the sanctity of the first-year-inductee status are misguided and silly. Those who won't vote for obvious Hall of Famers because they don't think anyone should be unanimous if Babe Ruth or whomever wasn't unanimous, they're even dumber and more delusional.

But I like that some time can be taken to study, simmer and review various candidates.

That's why I not only am perfectly fine but actively encourage voters to not fret about Mark McGwire's candidacy until he's in year 14 or 15. By that time, we ought to know significantly more about the steroids-abusers/cheats than we know now. Better to wait and do it later, if he's going to go into the Hall, than to put him in and then anguish over how to get him out. What is the almighty damn rush? Voters get those 15 years for a reason.

 

I agree with this. Those with exceedingly high standards (or egos, if you will) cancel and get canceled out by those on the other end of the spectrum who list 8-10 players every year. Those that meet in the middle decide the inductees, and do a pretty good job, regardless of whether you agree with Tony Perez or Andre Dawson.

I've got a larger problem with those who vote for Segui and Appier than I do with those who turn in a blank ballot.

 

Let's face it, for all of this wonderful debate there is only one requirement for inclusion in the Hall of Fame: Play 10 years in the major leagues.
Beyond that, every election is simply the opinions of the 539 or so people who vote.

 

Whoever voted for Kevin Appier, unveil yourself.

So should the assclown who voted for Jay Bell a year or two ago.

 

What's the lowest percentage anyone's ever risen from to get the 75% and make the Hall. Maybe the floor should be raised--25%, 35%, 50%? Might keep people from frivolously leaving people off ballots; correspondingly, would probably push people past 75% that don't make it today.

And kudos to Oscar Gamble on a HOF post a few pages back.

 

Blyleven's totals:

http://www.startribune.com/sports/twins/80867887.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUqCP:iUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr

Bert Blyleven's year-by-year Hall of Fame vote totals:

Year Votes Pct

1998 83 17.6

1999 70 14.1

2000 87 17.4

2001 121 23.5

2002 124 26.3

2003 145 29.2

2004 179 35.4

2005 211 40.9

2006 277 53.3

2007 260 47.7

2008 336 61.9

2009 338 62.7

2010 400 74.2

 

Maybe I'm just dense, but how in the world does a guy go from 14.1 percent to 5 votes away from the Hall of Fame?

 

See, to me, that's what's wrong with the HOF voting. How can someone go from 14 % to 74? 60% of the people changed their mind? 10-15 years after seeing the guy last play a game. Make it a 5 year eligibility period--that's apparently what it is for Blyleven, only it's the last 5 of his full 15.