Perhaps, but the main reason most give for not voting for Bonds is steroids - something with which Clemens is also tagged. It just seems odd that he'd vote for one 'roid user but not another.Rustjive said:
Hall of Fame balloting
- Thread starter JimRiceHOFer
- Start date
Perhaps, but the main reason most give for not voting for Bonds is steroids - something with which Clemens is also tagged. It just seems odd that he'd vote for one 'roid user but not another.
He had one vote left and flipped a coin.
He had one vote left and flipped a coin.
The voting for MLB awards is public, why cant they make the HOF voting public? Allows the public to hold voters accountable for who they vote for and could stop people from sending in blank/incomplete votes...
I think making the votes public is a good thing, but that won't stop anything- the reason those idiots do that is to make a point. They don't care if everyone knows it, for most of them that's the point.
I think making the votes public is a good thing, but that won't stop anything- the reason those idiots do that is to make a point. They don't care if everyone knows it, for most of them that's the point.
Quarter-serious. I'm pretty pissed about all of this, and my hyperbole got the best of me.Al Zarilla said:
With the antics/gimmicks of the writers reaching new lows, Pete's counting stats, Schilling and Mussina's low vote totals, and the bottle-necking of deserving players, I am preparing for the worst.
I believe he'll be there next year, but this year's display has taken some of the shine off the whole process.
Bleacher Report has him and RJ as the favorites to get in, so I won't be slashing my wrists just yet.
JohntheBaptist said:
If they want to make a point, that's fine. But they should be accountable and willing to explain their point. The only thing I can give Ken Gurnick credit for is that he was willing to put his ballot out there and give his reasons, as stupid and hypocritical as they might have been.
I'd like for the 15 other voters who left Greg Maddox off their ballot to say why they did it. I'd like for the guy who gave a vote to Jacque Jones to explain why. They're free to vote however they want, but be willing to make your case. Frankly, if you can't make a case in support of your ballot, it indicates you're not taking it seriously enough to warrant having the vote.
If they want to make a point, that's fine. But they should be accountable and willing to explain their point. The only thing I can give Ken Gurnick credit for is that he was willing to put his ballot out there and give his reasons, as stupid and hypocritical as they might have been.
I'd like for the 15 other voters who left Greg Maddox off their ballot to say why they did it. I'd like for the guy who gave a vote to Jacque Jones to explain why. They're free to vote however they want, but be willing to make your case. Frankly, if you can't make a case in support of your ballot, it indicates you're not taking it seriously enough to warrant having the vote.
Agree completely, and theres certainly a percentage for whom that shaming will either not be worth it or illuminating after the fact. I'm just referring to the ones who gleefully report their own stupidity like its supposed to impress anyone.
I'd like for the 15 other voters who left Greg Maddox off their ballot to say why they did it. I'd like for the guy who gave a vote to Jacque Jones to explain why. They're free to vote however they want, but be willing to make your case. Frankly, if you can't make a case in support of your ballot, it indicates you're not taking it seriously enough to warrant having the vote.
Agree completely, and theres certainly a percentage for whom that shaming will either not be worth it or illuminating after the fact. I'm just referring to the ones who gleefully report their own stupidity like its supposed to impress anyone.
Has anyone heard/seen any evidence of there being any pushback from the "clean" HOF candidates themselves? IOW, what are the odds that some of them, due to their own disgust with having to compete against juicers (or something of the sort), let it be privately known that they have no interest in sharing a stage with guys who they absolutely know cheated?
Personally, the thought would likely cross my mind if I had to sit there with a McGwire, Sosa orPalmeiro, etc. I have a feeling that in 50 years, baseball fans will reflect more on Clemens, Bonds and McGwire (and Pete Rose for that matter) than they will on current bottom rung of HOF'ers. Those guys will not need a bust in Cooperstown to be remembered.
Personally, the thought would likely cross my mind if I had to sit there with a McGwire, Sosa or
In addition to removing the Rule of 10 and making all the ballots public I would like to see the voting opened up to non newspaper writers. It's pretty silly that some guy whos a golf writer gets to vote and the likes of Bill James are shut out.
I'd do it this way:
25% : BBWAA
25% : social media / bloggers / TV and Radio commentators etc
25% : former players / managers / coaches / front office types
25% : fans
Not sure how one decides about accreditation but that's merely details. The idea is to open it up to the whole baseball world.
I'd do it this way:
25% : BBWAA
25% : social media / bloggers / TV and Radio commentators etc
25% : former players / managers / coaches / front office types
25% : fans
Not sure how one decides about accreditation but that's merely details. The idea is to open it up to the whole baseball world.
E5 Yaz said:
I could get behind fans getting some say, but no way would I give them 25% of the total. Maybe a single ballot done like the Deadspin/LeBetard vote. Do it for no other reason than to see what the consensus amongst fans is. The results of the Deadspin vote were pretty hard to argue with. I'd rather see a ballot done like that than one like Gurnick's.
Yaz4Ever said:
I suppose there's some argument that Bonds has been convicted in a court of law of lying under oath about his steriods use, the highest burden of proof we have in this country; while the allegations that Roger Clemens used failed to stand up to that level of scrutiny. Not saying I don't think Clemens used, but I could see reasoning someone might use as "absent a positive test or a conviction, I'm going to vote for everyone."
Gee .. I was operating under the impression the HOF was FOR the fans in the first place. Why shouldn't they have a say in who gets in?E5 Yaz said:
That's a pretty elitist view to be taking. Everyone on this site is just a baseball fan. You don't think SoSH as a collective could do a better job than the current bozos doing the voting?
Mike Greenwall said:
I'd say virtually zero chance Pedro does not get in next year. He might not receive as many votes as Maddux or Glavine (based on the IP and W thing), but he'll get 75% of the vote, easily.
The question is, who will get more votes: Unit or Pedro? I think at their peaks, Pedro was better, but I think Johnson will get more votes.
which is reason number 1 that AS appearances should be meaningless in determining HOF worthinessE5 Yaz said:
I'm not going to put words in E5 Yaz' mouth, but I'd like to think that most of us feel that SoSH as a collective could do a better job than many of those currently voting - opening this up to the public, however, does not limit it to fans who would take it seriously. Should my 7yo be able to click multiple times on Mike Cameron's name because he gave him a baseball at a Sox game a couple of years ago? Opening things up to fans would be far worse, imho, than just letting the current boobs handle things. I think members of the HoF speaking out should weigh heavily, but not the voices of the uncleaned masses.BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
SemperFidelisSox said:
And it would still be better than some of the ballots that are put out there by writers.
Jnai said:
I don't think anyone disagrees that Randy Johnson belongs in the Hall of Fame, and anyone not voting for him is absurd.
Just that the same is true about Pedro and Maddux as well - and that it's absurd that writers leave any of them off.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
Red(s)HawksFan said:
Here's an idea from the top of my head:
Every person who goes to the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown can register for an account with the HOF on their website, using a number printed on their admission ticket. Signing up online entitles them to be a part of the fan vote. I don't know whether it's 1%, 10% or 25% of the total weighting, but I think that filter is a natural, and pretty democratic, way to limit the pool to people who are at least likely to give it wise consideration - while still making it nominally public and open to anyone meeting that criterion. It might also have the side effect of driving up attendance, particularly repeat attendance.
So casual dumbasses who don't care about the history of the game are, by and large, out. Those who have cared enough about the game's history to visit its shrine all get a vote at how that shrine will evolve over time, though not enough to just gang up and enshrine Lenny Dykstra or something.
Apropos of nothing, but just because I liked it, I wanted to share this quote about Randy Johnson:
When do we start up the 2015 Hall of Fame voting thread?
That is going to be an awesome year.
When do we start up the 2015 Hall of Fame voting thread?
That is going to be an awesome year.
I don't get the fear over a weighted fan vote. I honestly don't.
Sure, there have been crappy examples of fan voting in the past, and you're going to have some group of uneducated voters, but would the fans really get it that far wrong to screw up the whole process any more than the writers currently do (or the players would)?
The Deadspin crowd probably isn't representative, but none of their percentages seemed really out of place. Even if you expand it to a national electorate, we have to assume they'd get the three guys who were voted in correct. I don't think you're going to see enough joke votes to really matter. Sure, Sean Casey will get some votes, but it will be weighted out by the sane voters. I'm guessing a fan who cares enough to fill out a ballot won't be sending a blank one in, or one without Greg Maddux, or at least not to a percentage that matters.
If 129.1 million Americans can cast a vote for president and have it come out where only .05% of that group voted for Roseanne Barr, I think they can handle a HoF vote adequately.
Sure, there have been crappy examples of fan voting in the past, and you're going to have some group of uneducated voters, but would the fans really get it that far wrong to screw up the whole process any more than the writers currently do (or the players would)?
The Deadspin crowd probably isn't representative, but none of their percentages seemed really out of place. Even if you expand it to a national electorate, we have to assume they'd get the three guys who were voted in correct. I don't think you're going to see enough joke votes to really matter. Sure, Sean Casey will get some votes, but it will be weighted out by the sane voters. I'm guessing a fan who cares enough to fill out a ballot won't be sending a blank one in, or one without Greg Maddux, or at least not to a percentage that matters.
If 129.1 million Americans can cast a vote for president and have it come out where only .05% of that group voted for Roseanne Barr, I think they can handle a HoF vote adequately.
BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
Not sure you can use TV and Radio commentators, mainly because they work for the teams. Major conflict of interest.
Same thing for some of the folks who work for MLB.com (though a bunch of MLB.com people get to vote because they used to work in newspapers and have lifetime voting privileges).
ThePrideofShiner said:
Cafardo, Shaughnessy, Abraham, et al. now work for the owners of the Red Sox as well.
It's not like teams and newspapers have always been some completely separate sets of entities. Heck, the Globe was involved with Red Sox ownership 100+ years ago.
terrisus said:
I'd argue that the Red Sox owning the Globe is quite different than teams choosing who does radio and TV broadcasts.
The Red Sox aren't going to fire Cafardo, Shaughnessy, Abraham, et al, for ripping the Red Sox.
If a radio announcer is too harsh a team can, and will, get rid of them.
Be careful what you wish for - even if you restrict admittance to TV and radio commentators who don't work for teams, it could very likely mean giving votes to guys like John Kruk, Harold Reynolds, Michael Kay, and Chris Berman for starters. The stable of ex-players at ESPN alone would probably drop the collective IQ of voters by more than a few points.
SemperFidelisSox said:
Come on, this is bullshit. Deadspin's ballot showed that fans can make good choices; their ballot was pretty much perfect.
moondog80 said:
No one has ever described the Deadspin community as smarter than the average bear.
I find the utter contempt for most fans appalling.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
I think the contempt is based in the years and years of All Star balloting, for one. I think that's a valid reason for limiting the fan input, but I do think fans should have a voice. The initially suggested 25% might be a bit high, but it definitely should be greater than the 0% it is now.
BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
The problem with allowing the fan vote is that certain teams in high-population areas (i.e. The Yankees) would have a distinct advantage in getting into the HOF. In my opinion, those players (and ones in Boston, Philly) already have an advantage because they get the lion's share of media attention as it is.
I am all for giving the fans a vote, but there has to be some way that doesn't inherently favor teams with huge fan bases. If Jack Morris had pitched his entire career for the Yankees (and had the exact same career), is there any doubt he'd be in the HOF right now?
Some of the ASG thing is that you can vote basically as many times as you want and teams encourage you to vote a million times for your home team guys. They throw ballots at you at some stadiums, and now anyone who cares to can vote 25 times online (with each e-mail address, so it's really unlimited if you have the time and you care). It's just not taken very seriously by the league so it's not surprising that it's treated casually by the fans.Red(s)HawksFan said:
If it was set up right and an attempt was made to restrict it to one vote per fan, and teams actually treated it with the seriousness it deserves, I think fans could make good decisions. The suggestion above of allowing a vote if you visit the museum makes good sense.
And I don't think anyone's suggesting it be 100%. Let's say it was 10% of the overall ballot proportional to the percentage of votes received.
Even if a New York/Los Angeles media machine pushes Don Mattingly to getting 80% of the fan votes, that's 8% of the overall total, he would still need to pull 67/90 of the remaining votes to get in. Taking it to the logical extreme, even if the fan vote was 25% and one player beats the system and gets 100% of the votes, they still need 2/3 of the remaining voters to go along with it to get into the Hall.
Also, the Deadspin thing was a reasonably big story before this, I know I voted on it and I rarely visit the site. It's still a self-selecting population but it's probably a decent cut.
Even if a New York/Los Angeles media machine pushes Don Mattingly to getting 80% of the fan votes, that's 8% of the overall total, he would still need to pull 67/90 of the remaining votes to get in. Taking it to the logical extreme, even if the fan vote was 25% and one player beats the system and gets 100% of the votes, they still need 2/3 of the remaining voters to go along with it to get into the Hall.
Also, the Deadspin thing was a reasonably big story before this, I know I voted on it and I rarely visit the site. It's still a self-selecting population but it's probably a decent cut.
So the BBWAA has released the ballots for 136 voters who agreed to have their ballots published. No idea how many of these were already revealed by the voter themselves, but some definitely were (Heyman, Sherman, Posnanski, PeteAbe, Chass, Rosenthal are among the ones I recognized).
The lone revealed ballot, aside from Gurnick, to leave Greg Maddux off (so there are 14 more still hiding in anonymity) had four names: Morris, Nomo, Raines, Trammell. The ballot belongs to Lawerence Rocca, who last covered baseball in 2004 for the Newark Star-Ledger. He left the Star-Ledger to take a job with the Chiba Lotte Marines in Japan. Since 2010, he has worked as Director of Development and Alumni Affairs at the Georgetown Preparatory School. Ten years he's been away from covering MLB. Four years he's been out of baseball entirely. Why does he have a vote?
The lone revealed ballot, aside from Gurnick, to leave Greg Maddux off (so there are 14 more still hiding in anonymity) had four names: Morris, Nomo, Raines, Trammell. The ballot belongs to Lawerence Rocca, who last covered baseball in 2004 for the Newark Star-Ledger. He left the Star-Ledger to take a job with the Chiba Lotte Marines in Japan. Since 2010, he has worked as Director of Development and Alumni Affairs at the Georgetown Preparatory School. Ten years he's been away from covering MLB. Four years he's been out of baseball entirely. Why does he have a vote?
I was talking to my brother the other day and I came up with a wacky solution to the Nomo type votes. You can make the voting a survivor style process in which any person that votes for a player that falls below the 5% threshold loses his voting privileges. That would make these fuckers take it a little more seriously and put an end to stupid shit like voting for Hideo Nomo and JT Snow. It the player is penalized for not receiving enough votes, shouldn't the dipshits that wasted a ballot slot on that player also suffer the consequences?
I know something like that would never even be considered but it gave me a good chuckle when I thought about it. Fuck, anything is better than the current system.
I know something like that would never even be considered but it gave me a good chuckle when I thought about it. Fuck, anything is better than the current system.
Yeah, I was kind of thinking the same thing the other day. Writers losing their vote if they:
1) Don't vote for someone who had higher than 95%
2) Vote for someone who had lower than 5%
Obviously there's all sorts of reasons why that wouldn't work, but, ah well.
1) Don't vote for someone who had higher than 95%
2) Vote for someone who had lower than 5%
Obviously there's all sorts of reasons why that wouldn't work, but, ah well.
Oh, I don't see anything wrong with a let-me-be-nice vote for someone on a team you have covered for years. How many times have there been ten candidates who should have been elected in a single year? I'd rather see the writers who pompously declare that they won't vote for anyone from the "PED era" not given a ballot.
And someone suggested that fans could get ballots by registering at the Hall of Fame. The big problem with that is Cooperstown isn't near any beaten path. It's not like you can say, "Well, I'm flying in and out of NYC, so I'll stop off and register." Cooperstown is like a 3.5 hour drive.
I think fan input of some kind would be a good idea but internet balloting is a farce and handing out ballots at games isn't much better. In the latter case, I have seen ushers filling out All-Star ballots instead of handing them out and young kids getting handfuls of them from grownups. Now, we'll have eight-year-olds judging whether Mike Mussina belongs in the Hall?
And since I'm meandering through the landscape of the worthy, I decided to look at WAR per Inning pitched. While IP is a component in determining pitcher's WAR, I don't think there is any problem with looking at it as WAR/IP afterwards. In that respect, I pulled the WAR for HoF pitchers and added some pitchers that have been under discussion. Pedro Martinez leads the list with a WAR/IP of 0.030417, followed by Roger Clemens at 0.028353, Lefty Grove at 0.027914. Mike Mussina comes in 5th at 0.023213 behind Walter Johnson. Jack Morris comes in 54th of 59 at 0.011454 (Early Wynn/Burleigh Grimes/Jesse Haines/Catfish Hunter/Rube Marquard--0.010403).
Note: the list does include Babe Ruth in 37th spot.
And someone suggested that fans could get ballots by registering at the Hall of Fame. The big problem with that is Cooperstown isn't near any beaten path. It's not like you can say, "Well, I'm flying in and out of NYC, so I'll stop off and register." Cooperstown is like a 3.5 hour drive.
I think fan input of some kind would be a good idea but internet balloting is a farce and handing out ballots at games isn't much better. In the latter case, I have seen ushers filling out All-Star ballots instead of handing them out and young kids getting handfuls of them from grownups. Now, we'll have eight-year-olds judging whether Mike Mussina belongs in the Hall?
And since I'm meandering through the landscape of the worthy, I decided to look at WAR per Inning pitched. While IP is a component in determining pitcher's WAR, I don't think there is any problem with looking at it as WAR/IP afterwards. In that respect, I pulled the WAR for HoF pitchers and added some pitchers that have been under discussion. Pedro Martinez leads the list with a WAR/IP of 0.030417, followed by Roger Clemens at 0.028353, Lefty Grove at 0.027914. Mike Mussina comes in 5th at 0.023213 behind Walter Johnson. Jack Morris comes in 54th of 59 at 0.011454 (Early Wynn/Burleigh Grimes/Jesse Haines/Catfish Hunter/Rube Marquard--0.010403).
Note: the list does include Babe Ruth in 37th spot.
That was kinda part of the point: keep casual fans out and only let people in who bothered to make the trek. I'm not sure whether I agree with it, but I think it was anticipated.OttoC said:
SumnerH said:
As pointed out upthread though, a white middle class guy from NE can drive his kids to the HOF one weekend. Not so much so the average family from CA or the Pacific NW.
While it's not a bad idea to limit any franchise to individuals who are more likely to make responsible decisions, this isn't the way to do it.
Yaz, while I agree with your sentiment that fans voting seems like a silly idea, I would like to pint out that though he was by no means a hall of famer, that Mike Cameron did post 49.7 FWAR over 16 seasons which is practically like voting for Jack Morris (not a hall of famer either) 52.5 FWAR over 17 Season or Jim Rice (50.8 FWAR over 15 seasons) Considering that Cameron established his value in ways typically undervalued, one could argue that your son at the tender the age of 7 has a more sophisticated understanding of baseball than the writers who get to vote for the hall of fame.
I love the fact that a scumbag like Palmeiro is off the ballot. This is the best way to handle PED users: hope they get less than 5% so that the media doesn't debate their candidacy. Hopefully, Sosa and/or McGwire will get less than 5% next year. As much as I would like to see Bonds and Clemens get less than 5%, I don't think it is likely. However, it is even less likely that they ever get 75%.
PED users like Pettitte and Manny may get under 5% in their first year of eligibility.
As part of the application process for the FBI, the applicant must pass a lie detector test. I don't know why MLB can't implement something similar for HOF candidacy. Players who don't submit to a test, or who fail a test, will not be eligible for the HOF. That is one way, perhaps the only way, to distinguish genuine HOF players from frauds.
PED users like Pettitte and Manny may get under 5% in their first year of eligibility.
As part of the application process for the FBI, the applicant must pass a lie detector test. I don't know why MLB can't implement something similar for HOF candidacy. Players who don't submit to a test, or who fail a test, will not be eligible for the HOF. That is one way, perhaps the only way, to distinguish genuine HOF players from frauds.
FanSinceBoggs said:
I'm not so sure about Manny .. I think he's going to fair much better than most of the PED guys .. maybe it's the fact he was a total flake (except in the batter box of course)
JimD said:
As much as I like Bill James, the guy is a total clown on the PED issue. I wouldn't want Bill James to have a HOF vote.
BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
Maybe if he failed one drug test....failing two drug tests will not only keep him out of the HOF, but might open the door to a sub-5%.
The second positive test demonstrated a complete lack of regard for the game and sportsmanship. Manny's candidacy is doomed.
Nobody outside the Bay Area will know who she is, but Ann Killion consistently submits the worst HOF ballots this side of Gurnick/Chass/Vene, and I hardly ever see her write about baseball. When she does, it's usually idiotic takes. How the fuck does she have a vote? As far as I know she's never covered a team. Say what you want about Rocca, at least he covered a team and then worked in Japanese baseball.