2014 HOF Vote (Angelswin Results are in!)

[nate]

I agree.  The more exclusive the better.

[Jeff Fletcher]

Jeff..

I wonder your thoughts on the whole "rule of 10" thing...

I see a lot of writers stating it as an issue in why this guy or that didn't get in, but how would voting him 11th have helped there or justify it?

Adding 11-15 doesn't seem to help that to me or make a lot of sense as a reason why a guy was left off a top 10 list to justify inclusion.

I don't think there's any reason to have a limit of 10. I wanted to vote for 12. Those two lost votes could have made a difference to the outcome. In fact some people's lost votes would have gone to Craig Biggio. He only needed 2.

[Jeff Fletcher]

I'm all for including lots of other people in the decision so they can share some of the ridicule.

There will be questionable decisions by any group. Period.

[AngelsLakersFan]

The rule limiting votes to 10 per ballot is the only actual constraint on the size of the Hall. It's better from the perspective of the Hall of Fame to induct 2 or 3 candidates per year than it is for them to induct 0-5.

[Jeff Fletcher]

The rule limiting votes to 10 per ballot is the only actual constraint on the size of the Hall. It's better from the perspective of the Hall of Fame to induct 2 or 3 candidates per year than it is for them to induct 0-5.

I think the 75 percent rule is sufficient to limit too many people getting in.

[NrM]

 

FYI, mine....

Bagwell

Bonds

Clemens

Glavine

Kent

Maddux

Piazza

Raines

Schilling

Thomas

If anyone happens to subscribe to the OCR...

http://t.co/ovfTtxojra

And you guys are going to have to stop with any sentence that makes any kind of generalization about what "the writers" think, because apparently you guys think the same way.

I'd say that's a pretty good list.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

Glavine undoubtedly got some bounce from pitching during the period when the Braves won 14 consecutive division titles and had one of the best starting staffs ever assembled. I believe that John Smoltz will get the same benefit next year - plus some of his most clutch performances came in October.

[Brent Maguire]

Jeff, your list looks pretty damn good.

Glad we have some smart writers covering our team. Not easy to say that for a lot of other teams.

[Docwaukee]

Those in charge of the Hall of Fame have to ask themselves what the ultimate goal is here. 

 

Is it that they want to ensure that all those worthy of being inducted get inducted?

 

Is the process by which this occurs important?  ie, is the history and tradition behind how this happens an important part of the process?  

 

To me, the first question is the most important.  You have to get it right.  

 

Jeff - you seem frustrated with the incessant complaining (and I am sympathetic of that), but most of those complaining just want all the right players to get in and they want the process to make that possible.  Right now, it doesn't seem optimized for that.  I think being able to vote for the hall members is a great honor and a privilege and it's a disservice to the fans, the hall of fame itself, the players, and in fact the other conscientious members of the bbwa that someone could cast their vote relative to the length of the ceremony.  

 

If everything remained as is, perhaps 10 years from now, it will all get ironed out, but with the way things are currently set, it may not and that would be unfortunate for a worthy player to be collateral damage of such. 

 

If the hall of fame values the tradition of the process as much as the players being inducted then so be it and I will move on, but my guess is that the purpose of this honor was never meant to be contingent on that. 

[Jeff Fletcher]

What bugs me is the constant focus on the few outliers.

There were 571 voters and people are griping about 5 or 6 of them.

My guesstimate...

70 percent do an awesome job and put a lot of thought into it

25 percent are old timers who go too much by the "eye" and "feel" tests for my tastes but still mostly produce thoughtful ballots

5 percent have no business voting

There are plenty of ways you could tweak it and make it better but I don't think any of them will change the end result of who gets in the HOF because the biggest issue in that respect now is PEDs, and that will be divisive no matter who votes.

[Jeff Fletcher]

And one more point... The Hall of Fame decides who votes and what the criteria are. Not the BBWAA.

We are doing this because they ask us to.

If they wanted anyone else to vote, they could have invited them at any point in the last 75 years.

[YouthofToday]

Like all systems in life it is vital to be flexible. The current system is completely rigid and incapable of adapting to a more diverse perspective of the game.

Baseball is a for profit business. The Hall is non-profit and struggling. Somebody at the Hall needs to demonstrate leadership and find a way to engage fans in this process -- even if an Internet vote only counted for 10% of the final vote.

Edited January 10, 2014 by YouthofToday

[Docwaukee]

And one more point... The Hall of Fame decides who votes and what the criteria are. Not the BBWAA.

We are doing this because they ask us to.

If they wanted anyone else to vote, they could have invited them at any point in the last 75 years.

Absolutely.  I agree that there are most likely just a handful of outliers and I don't blame the BBWA whatsoever.  This is all on the HOF.  I actually have no problem with the BBWA being those that cast the votes but I would like to see the hall take a more active and ever evolving role in determining who gets to vote and who doesn't.  Hold the outliers accountable if possible.  Set the system up so there is as little room for error as possible. 

 

We have already seen potentially worth guys drop off the ballot so it may have already affected the intended outcome.  So I personally feel that changing the process or at least looking into it is worthwhile in order to minimize any further potential damage.  Just a bit more stringency would be welcomed and create a worthy corollary to the honor of being inducted.

[Docwaukee]

I tend to disagree that the fans should have any say in this.  It's wrought with potential for manipulation and would be very difficult to police.  Doing away with the ten pick max and having some sort of oversight of the voters would be enough.  Perhaps make those honored to vote provide explanations as to why or why not they felt a player worthy of their vote.  If those explanations don't make sense to the powers that be at the HOF, then those people don't get to vote anymore.  I don't think the vote need be limited to the BBWA per se as well.  There are many ways to skin this cat and make it better so why not at least try. 

[YouthofToday]

Disagree Dochalo. As long as the voting is secure from bots. You could limit votes to 5 per IP address. Crowd sourcing voting has not been a disaster for the All-Star game.

I am not advocating fans should account for more than 33% of the final vote.

The risk a crowd sourced 10% or similar percent truly influences the outcome is highly unlikely IMO.

[mtangelsfan]

No way fans should get any touch of the vote.  Look at the All star game every year. 

[YouthofToday]

No way fans should get any touch of the vote. Look at the All star game every year.

You understand the difference between representing 100% of the vote and only a 10% portion of the vote, right?

Also, I don't think the fans do much worse with their aggregate vote for the All-Star than the HOF vote.

The fact Jack Morris nearly got in, Jim Rice somehow got in and that Tim Raines isn't even close is in the same ballpark as bad as some questionable All-Star choices. Besides, limiting fan vote to a smaller percentage radically reduces it's impact.

[floplag]

I don't think there's any reason to have a limit of 10. I wanted to vote for 12. Those two lost votes could have made a difference to the outcome. In fact some people's lost votes would have gone to Craig Biggio. He only needed 2.

 

I would agree if 10 made it in.

Bottom line you had 10 guys on your list than you felt were more deserving than Biggio or he would have made your list.

The issue for me isn't the process, but the men behind it.  I'm not referring to you so much here mind you but the men who either cast blank ballots, or sell them, or cast trash votes for ludicrous players... If those men follow the spirit of the process Biggio is in and this is a non issue.

[mtangelsfan]

You understand the difference between representing 100% of the vote and only a 10% portion of the vote, right?

Also, I don't think the fans do much worse with their aggregate vote for the All-Star than the HOF vote.

The fact Jack Morris nearly got in, Jim Rice somehow got in and that Tim Raines isn't even close is in the same ballpark as bad as some questionable All-Star choices. Besides, limiting fan vote to a smaller percentage radically reduces it's impact.

 

If you need to reduce the impact of the fans, that tells you everything you need to know.  80% of the fans only vote for the uniform just like most political voters only vote for the letter after the politician's name. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

I'm not sure why people feel like the 10 max is a problem. Sure the 75% consensus is a constraint but why not cast votes for every eligible player?

What is it that really defines a Hall of Famer systematically in the voting process?  The 10 player limit is just that. It says a Hall of Famer is no greater than the 10th most deserving player on the ballot.

 

I say this as someone who, given a vote, probably would've voted for 14 or 15 guys this year. But how often does this really happen? Rarely are there 10 players on the ballot that are worthy by current standards. Biggio is a little better than borderline to me, He's in no danger of falling off the ballot, so he'll get in eventually when the ballot is a little less crowded (or maybe next year). The HoF doesn't want a repeat of last year because we voted in every reasonable candidate in one or two classes. 

[Blarg]

Like all systems in life it is vital to be flexible. The current system is completely rigid and incapable of adapting to a more diverse perspective of the game.

Baseball is a for profit business. The Hall is non-profit and struggling. Somebody at the Hall needs to demonstrate leadership and find a way to engage fans in this process -- even if an Internet vote only counted for 10% of the final vote.

 

The individual fan my be a sober thinking person but fans in general are idiots tied to the logo on their team gear and have no business making any decisions about who the best players are. The All Star game is a prime example of that.

[YouthofToday]

The individual fan my be a sober thinking person but fans in general are idiots tied to the logo on their team gear and have no business making any decisions about who the best players are. The All Star game is a prime example of that.

I actually think the wisdom of crowds is more sober than the distinctiveness of an individual.

A problem with the All-Star vote is there is no limit on the number of times one can vote. Simply limiting 5 or 10 votes per IP address would reduce these issues.

Yes, there are ways to get around the IP address limitation yet it would radically cut down on a 60 year-old voting 2,500 times for Jeff Mathis, for instance.

[Jeff Fletcher]

I would agree if 10 made it in.

Bottom line you had 10 guys on your list than you felt were more deserving than Biggio or he would have made your list.

The issue for me isn't the process, but the men behind it.  I'm not referring to you so much here mind you but the men who either cast blank ballots, or sell them, or cast trash votes for ludicrous players... If those men follow the spirit of the process Biggio is in and this is a non issue.

I actually I wouldn't have voted for Biggio under any circumstances. I didn't vote for him last year when I had 3 empty spots.

 

I have nothing bad to say about the guy, but to me his case is based more on longevity than dominance, and I prefer the latter. Nothing wrong with being in the top 2 percent of players in major league history instead of the top 1 percent.

[floplag]

I actually I wouldn't have voted for Biggio under any circumstances. I didn't vote for him last year when I had 3 empty spots.

 

I have nothing bad to say about the guy, but to me his case is based more on longevity than dominance, and I prefer the latter. Nothing wrong with being in the top 2 percent of players in major league history instead of the top 1 percent.

Very true... i only mention Biggio as im reading from a lot of writers how if they had more votes he would have made it.. or certainly implying as much.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

I tend to disagree that the fans should have any say in this. It's wrought with potential for manipulation and would be very difficult to police.

Just look at the voting for the All Star Game. That isn't a process I want for deciding who is enshrined at Cooperstown. Every Yankee of any significance would make the HOF.