Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board

The Baseball Hall of Fame Thread


LethalStriker

Recommended Posts

(COOPERSTOWN, NY) – The National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum’s Board of Directors today announced changes to the rules for election for recently retired players, reducing the length of stay on the ballot for players from a maximum of 15 to 10 years, while installing a new balloting and registration process for Baseball Writers’ Association of America voting members.

The changes, effective immediately and to be reflected in 2015 Hall of Fame voting, are the first made by the Hall of Fame to the voting process since 1991 and just the second time the Baseball Hall of Fame has amended the rules for election since 1985.

“The Board is committed to keeping the policies and voting procedures of the Hall of Fame relevant,” said Jane Forbes Clark, Chairman of the Board of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum. “We believe the BBWAA has done an excellent job of honoring the criteria advanced by the Hall of Fame – player’s record, contributions to the teams on which the player played, character, sportsmanship and integrity – to determine individuals who belong in the Hall of Fame by the highest threshold, a 75 percent majority. The Board believes these changes are necessary to ensure the integrity of the voting process moving forward.”

Candidates for Hall of Fame election who receive votes on at least five percent of ballots cast had previously been eligible to remain on the ballot for a maximum of 15 years of consideration by the BBWAA. Going forward, the maximum years of consideration for a player who meets that criteria is now 10 years. Candidates would then move to the Era Committee system for review in perpetuity. Three candidates presently on the BBWAA ballot in years 10-15 will be grandfathered into this system and remain under consideration by the BBWAA for up to the full 15 years. Don Mattingly (15th year in 2015), Alan Trammell (14th year in 2015) and Lee Smith (13th year in 2015) will be eligible to remain on the BBWAA ballot for a maximum of 15 years of consideration.

BBWAA members earn a Hall of Fame vote from its organization, which is independent of the Hall of Fame, by maintaining 10 consecutive years on a baseball beat. Those Hall of Fame eligible voters will now be required to complete a registration form and sign a code of conduct. The names of those BBWAA members casting Hall of Fame ballots will now be made public with the election results; however, an individual’s ballot will not be revealed by the Hall of Fame.

Ernst and Young will continue to verify the count, with added responsibilities in verifying the process. The 2015 ballot will be announced by the BBWAA in late-November and those who have completed the registration process will receive their ballot around that time. Ballots are to be postmarked by December 31. The 2015 BBWAA Hall of Fame results will be announced at a yet to be determined date in early January.

Of the 211 players in the Hall of Fame, 115 have been elected by the BBWAA, 96 by Veterans Committees. Of the 115 BBWAA electees, 102 (89%) have been elected in years 1-10 and 13 (11%) have been elected in years 11-15.

The BBWAA has held the exclusive voting privilege to consider recently retired players for election to the National Baseball Hall of Fame since 1936. Since that time, the BBWAA has presided over 70 elections in 79 election years, with no elections being held in 1940, 1941, 1943, 1944, 1957, 1959, 1961, 1963 and 1965.

In the nascent stages of Hall of Fame voting, election rules were not codified. By World War II, they began to take shape, with evolution over ensuing years featuring changes to the eligibility criteria and qualifications for earning election. The rules for election are maintained and governed by the Hall of Fame’s Board of Directors.

The last rule change implemented by the Hall of Fame came in 1991, formalizing a long-standing unwritten rule that anyone on baseball’s ineligible list cannot be an eligible candidate for Hall of Fame election. Prior to that, in 1985, the Board made candidates eligible for future elections if they were named on five percent or more of ballots cast in preceding elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Yes, folks it's that time of year... The HOF ballots are announced and in the interest of the HOF not swelling to ridiculous numbers it's time to consider those who don't really belong (and why). You may select up to ten players and four non-players (or guys that are primarily in for their post-player careers). If you want to go the easy route and single out guys that were jerks, that's up to you, but there are a ton of mediocre players who somehow got in (often by buying Frankie Frisch a drink). We have a number of baseball scholars on this board so it should be interesting to see what we come up with. Anyone appearing on 60% of the ballots we will consider now and forever a joke of a HOFr and erase them from our copies of the HOF list.

 

Voting shall be open until 11/30/14, feel free to explain WHY you would boot someone. "He was a shitty player" is not a compelling argument, please explain WHY you think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rick Ferell. According to the Bill James HOF book, the only reason he was elected was because he had friends on the veterans committee. They would throw him a bone and give him a token vote every year. That is until they all did the same thing one year and he got elected. OOPS. Probably read that book fifteen years  and the story still sticks with me. . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By all accounts Rick Ferrell was a very nice man, often picked up the tab when out with his old buddies. He spent most of his career on two shitty teams (Browns and Senators) and five years on a good team (Red Sox). In an 18 year career he has a big fat zero in both Black Ink and Gray Ink, which speaks volumes as to what contemporary reporters thought of him. He was a pretty decent catcher, but nothing special. During his initial period of eligibility his best total was a whopping 5% of the vote. His brother Wes has a better claim to being in the HOF (not that he belongs, but most HRs by a pitcher is at least an interesting stat and Rick doesn't have any stats that can be considered interesting.)

 

Yeah, Ferrell is going to be on my list. That's one of the no-brainers, right up there with Roger Bresnahan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kirby's in because of a tragically shortened career and his long-time image as "An Ambassador of the Game", I bought it, you bought it, and it wasn't until he was already inducted that we learned he was really sort of a scumbag. The only HOFr that he really compares with is Kiki Cuyler, who is also a really marginal HOFr. Kirby's a pretty weak selection for the HOF, but there are far, far worse in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How far back do you want to go? I tend to look at pre-1900 guys with a careful eye, especially when they were inducted during the early hall of fame years. How the hell are we supposed to know how good they were? I will say I am surprised how bad Roy Campella's numbers are. . . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, Campy had his car accident when I was a year old, so obviously I never saw him play. However, my parents and aunts and uncles (all of whom were casual fans, not SABR-minded folk), all spoke of Campy as one of the greats. Factor in the fact that he may have missed two-three prime years due to the color barrier and may have missed 3-4 good seasons at the end of his career; played in a major market, and believe you me, there has never been a team with the fanatical devotion as the Brooklyn Dodgers, had a tragic accident, and was a presence as a broadcaster for many years later and a genuine nice guy it's clear to see how he got in. Who knows when he would have made it to the Show without the color barrier, but the dude was playing professionally at 15 years of age. Think about that for a second, at 15 the kid was hanging with guys in their twenties and thirties...

 

Another thought, I give the BBWA a lot of grief, (most of it well-deserved), but they have gotten it right far often than they've gotten it wrong (leaving aside the idiots that send in blank ballot because they think the doors should have closed after the initial induction ceremony, or the idiots that say non one should get on the first ballot); and from 1964-1969 the writers who were all old enough to have seen him play never gave him less than 57% and that was in his first year of eligibility, 1964. That year they seemed to all hop on the Luke Appling bandwagon for reasons that are obscure to me and he came out of a run-off with as astonishing 94% of the vote to 68% for Campy. The following years saw percentages of 65%, 69%, 72% and finally in with 79%.

 

It's telling that the people who saw him play seem to think he belongs, how much of that was attributable to tragedy, how much to the fact that he remained in the public eye, and how much was do to his on-field performance is open to debate. I like Campy, because like myself he was a pudgy stocky guy that could play, (I'm built sort of along the lines of Kevin Sullivan and have been since high school).

 

One last thought, at the time he played power-hitting catchers usually came along about once or twice a decade, you really only had Bill Dickey, Mickey Cochrane, Gabby Hartnett, and Ernie Lombardi before him and Campy had more power than any of them (Dickey was by far a better player, but Campy out-homered him by a considerable margin). I'm not going to say that he is a top 10% choice, but it is pretty easy to see why he's in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, Campy had his car accident when I was a year old, so obviously I never saw him play. However, my parents and aunts and uncles (all of whom were casual fans, not SABR-minded folk), all spoke of Campy as one of the greats. Factor in the fact that he may have missed two-three prime years due to the color barrier and may have missed 3-4 good seasons at the end of his career; played in a major market, and believe you me, there has never been a team with the fanatical devotion as the Brooklyn Dodgers, had a tragic accident, and was a presence as a broadcaster for many years later and a genuine nice guy it's clear to see how he got in. Who knows when he would have made it to the Show without the color barrier, but the dude was playing professionally at 15 years of age. Think about that for a second, at 15 the kid was hanging with guys in their twenties and thirties...

 

Another thought, I give the BBWA a lot of grief, (most of it well-deserved), but they have gotten it right far often than they've gotten it wrong (leaving aside the idiots that send in blank ballot because they think the doors should have closed after the initial induction ceremony, or the idiots that say non one should get on the first ballot); and from 1964-1969 the writers who were all old enough to have seen him play never gave him less than 57% and that was in his first year of eligibility, 1964. That year they seemed to all hop on the Luke Appling bandwagon for reasons that are obscure to me and he came out of a run-off with as astonishing 94% of the vote to 68% for Campy. The following years saw percentages of 65%, 69%, 72% and finally in with 79%.

 

It's telling that the people who saw him play seem to think he belongs, how much of that was attributable to tragedy, how much to the fact that he remained in the public eye, and how much was do to his on-field performance is open to debate. I like Campy, because like myself he was a pudgy stocky guy that could play, (I'm built sort of along the lines of Kevin Sullivan and have been since high school).

 

One last thought, at the time he played power-hitting catchers usually came along about once or twice a decade, you really only had Bill Dickey, Mickey Cochrane, Gabby Hartnett, and Ernie Lombardi before him and Campy had more power than any of them (Dickey was by far a better player, but Campy out-homered him by a considerable margin). I'm not going to say that he is a top 10% choice, but it is pretty easy to see why he's in.

I guess I phrased my post ackwardly  I've read enough about him to know he belongs, but with surprised looking at the WAR,how low he was relative to, say Roger Bresnahan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill Mazeroski. Looking at his stats, he had a respectable career and most closely matches up with non- HOF'er Frank White. Both have the same career WAR of 26.9. In 1978, his first year of eligibility, Maz received a 6.1% vote and his highest total was 1992, receiving 42.3%. He was inducted by the Veteran's Committee in 2001. The pair had similar careers, but Mazeroski's game seven home run of the 1960 WS seems to be the difference.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Puckett, he was an elite defender at a premium position for over a decade. And a great hitter pretty much the entire time. He was still a great player when he retired.

He belongs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me amend this idea, if I may (and of course I may, it's my idea)... Let's not turn in any full ballots until the week starting the 24th, voting still closes on the 30th. That gives us three full weeks to bring the hate and debate the merits of various players. Sound good?

 

Oh yeah, my comparison of Kirby to Cuyler is a bit over the top, and Kirby's definitely a better selection, but as far as I'm concerned he's in the bottom 25% of guys that should be in. (The bottom 25% consists of players that I likely wouldn't vote for unless it was a really weak year, but also guys that I'm not upset about being in for the most part. Well, the bottom 10% is actually another matter entirely...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice Guy Eddie:

 

You pretty much nailed Maz, he's Frank White with a famous home run... Or, is Frank White actually a better candidate? Bill James used to be really high on the guy and while I think of his contemporaries Lou Whitaker was better, I also have to factor in Lou's double-play partner who is the best shortstop not in the HOF not named "Rodriguez" or "Jeter". I'm going to have to really look at the numbers closely, of course, I saw Frank White play and I thought he was certainly studly at his position, but I always thought Sweet Lou was better. Let me crunch some numbers and see if I was right or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That didn't take long, while Frank White may have been a slightly better guy with the glove (or at least developed that reputation, GG winners who have such a long uninterrupted streak are very suspect to me, it's smacks of the Jim Kaat syndrome, wherein it just became habit to assume he was the best fielding pitcher regardless of what stats would indicate.) Anyway, I was right, Lou wasn't just better than Frank; he was fucking light years better. As a point of fact, the ten second basemen that he is closest to are folk such as Sandberg, Hornsby, Morgan and the like. He ranks well ahead of several HOFr's and way ahead of Frank White. Even if we concede superior defense to White, it ain't close. Sweet Lou is a bonafide HOFr and Frank White is Maz without a famous homerun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...