Master Index of Archived Threads


New Hall of Fame voting rules

Mets Guy in Michigan Jul 28 2015 03:11 PM

Lots of tweets about a new rule for HoF voting. I think this is a good idea. I'd be curious how much the voting ranks have swelled over the years. And also curious who gets the boot -- and would love to compare that with the vote tracker site to see how things would have changed had the new system been in place.

Nymr83 Jul 28 2015 03:14 PM Re: New Hall of Fame voting rules

yeah the opportunities to see what might have been will be interesting. were the antiquated voters less likely to vote at all?

Ceetar Jul 28 2015 03:16 PM Re: New Hall of Fame voting rules

good sign. Feels like the older guys were more likely to vote along ignorant morality guidelines.

Mets Guy in Michigan Jul 28 2015 03:20 PM Re: New Hall of Fame voting rules

Nymr83 wrote: yeah the opportunities to see what might have been will be interesting. were the antiquated voters less likely to vote at all? Without the research, I think that's the case. I think the larger the number of people voting, the more difficult it is to get 75 percent. And, this year's large Hall class not withstanding, we know there is a backlog of players.

Mets Guy in Michigan Jul 28 2015 03:25 PM Re: New Hall of Fame voting rules

The ESPN article says there were 650 voters this year. If I'm reading it right, I think there were just 300 voters in 1970.

Frayed Knot Jul 28 2015 03:50 PM Re: New Hall of Fame voting rules

I agree with the overall premise that the most active and the most current should make up a better and more informed voting bloc than does including all kinds of one-time baseball writers who long ago either retired or have moved on to covering politics, fashion, or, maybe worst of all, football. In that vein this is an overdue move. But I don't know that fewer voters necessarily means more inductees, or even that more is be definition better, or even that there's a backlog of overlooked candidates just waiting for their wrongs to be righted. You just hope you can get the best group to come up with the best answers -- answers where the 'Nays' are as important as the 'Yays' -- even when those choices don't jibe with your personal ones.

Edgy MD Jul 28 2015 04:12 PM Re: New Hall of Fame voting rules

Ceetar wrote: good sign. Feels like the older guys were more likely to vote along ignorant morality guidelines. Morality guidelines aren't necessarily ignorant. There are some that are and always have been explicitly part of the criteria that people are asked to vote on. Boo on age prejudice. The BBWAA has provided no shortage of controversies in the micro. In the macro, they almost always get the right men.

Ceetar Jul 29 2015 07:50 AM Re: New Hall of Fame voting rules

Edgy MD wrote: Ceetar wrote: good sign. Feels like the older guys were more likely to vote along ignorant morality guidelines. Morality guidelines aren't necessarily ignorant. There are some that are and always have been explicitly part of the criteria that people are asked to vote on. Boo on age prejudice. The BBWAA has provided no shortage of controversies in the micro. In the macro, they almost always get the right men. it's not age prejudice, trust me. Statistics are not opinions, they're facts, and many of these older guys are on record against them, or on record stating they're voting for arbitrary personal reasons. And I KNOW a few of the younger guys (who can't vote yet). I don't trust their opinion more because I'm a fan/friends/agree with them, but because they're more apt to take a logical, fact-based approach. I can't know for certain obviously, as I barely paid attention to the charade last voting cycle since it didn't include Barry Bonds and therefore can't be taken seriously, but of the votes I do know about votes of NAY for Bonds, Bagwell, Piazza, etc are going to be not cast this time which likely means a higher percentage.

Edgy MD Jul 29 2015 08:00 AM Re: New Hall of Fame voting rules

Ceetar wrote: it's not age prejudice, trust me. "Feels like older guys..." is just that. Ceetar wrote: Statistics are not opinions, they're facts... I don't say otherwise. Ceetar wrote: ...and many of these older guys are on record against them... You're going to have to demonstrate with facts to back this claim up. And to distinguish this behavior from that of young guys. And quite obviously, the Hall of Fame asks for more than the statistical record to be considered. Ceetar wrote: ... and are on record stating they're voting for arbitrary personal reasons. And the younger ones are somehow pure? Ceetar wrote: And I KNOW a few of the younger guys (who can't vote yet). Who you barbecue with does not make you a better person than me, or them better than other voters Ceetar wrote: I don't trust their opinion more because I'm a fan/friends/agree with them... But you KNOW them — all caps — and that's somehow important to you. But not to me. Ceetar wrote: ...but because they're more apt to take a logical, fact-based approach. I'd like to see a logical fact-based argument for why I should believe this. I see plenty of young writers making arguments I disagree with, regurgitating received wisdom that is based in anything but established fact. Like the notion that morality guidelines are ignorant. They're not. I saw a young writer write last week that Pete Rose should be inducted because Ty Cobb was a rapist.

Ceetar Jul 29 2015 08:21 AM Re: New Hall of Fame voting rules

I mean, part of the problem is there is no such thing as a 'young' voter. The guys I'm talking about are in their 30s and can't vote for years. Though this is another mark against the BBWAA as authority on anything. Seriously, guys writing about baseball on this internet thing couldn't vote, but guys covering golf for 30 years? no problem! I shouldn't need to dig up ballot quotes to suggest that dropping the latter as the former start getting votes is going to give a more 'true' result. Murray Chass is presumably not losing his vote, but you should be familiar with his ignorance. It's not a catch-all either, here's Kirby Allen doing it justice despite being a golf writer: [url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2014/01/08/baseballs-hall-of-fame-voting-is-broken/ I vehemently disagree with any stance against steroids, but at least it's fact based for Kirby. (i.e. guys that have undeniably been linked to steroids. Oh, and a dig at Chass.) He'll likely lose his vote, so there goes 1 for Piazza. Maybe I'm wrong. I can't find a solid breakdown of all the ballots easily right now, but find plenty of ignorant ballots from people that still technically cover baseball (if not well). I'd like to see the museum we have truly represent the inner circle of baseball players. I'm even okay with Pete Rose, because it's a museum (And the morality clause is a joke). Don't let him work in/near baseball, but in a museum to the game that he was clearly a big part of? But whatever, it's a club of randomly selected people. It's like a fraternity. I don't need their approval to call Bonds and Piazza Hall of Famers.

Edgy MD Jul 29 2015 08:25 AM Re: New Hall of Fame voting rules

Ceetar wrote: (And the morality clause is a joke). But other people's standards are arbitrary?

Ceetar Jul 29 2015 08:35 AM Re: New Hall of Fame voting rules

Edgy MD wrote: Ceetar wrote: (And the morality clause is a joke). But other people's standards are arbitrary? the entire damn think is arbitrary and I wish it wasn't. The morality clause has no part in baseball, put the best players in the Hall. As stated, there are poor moral characters already in. dozens of them. why include some and not others? Personal reasons. And a couple of writers personal morality should not attempt to prevent millions from celebrating a great baseball player. There's a difference between inner circle baseball players and the list of an arbitrary group of people's list of favorite players.

Frayed Knot Jul 29 2015 12:19 PM Re: New Hall of Fame voting rules

The best evidence I've heard that these changes would help those from the steroid era who have been falling short is that apparently those players have been getting lower percentages from those who don't publicize their ballots and those who don't publicize their ballots tend to be more heavily represented among the non-active segment of writers. Those sound like general tendencies more than absolutes but it's probable that weeding out some retired votes will increase the odds for some of the '90s-era players. Whether it's enough to make a meaningful difference or not we'll have to see. I saw a young writer write last week that Pete Rose should be inducted because Ty Cobb was a rapist. "Information" that he probably got from the Tommy Lee Jones movie (actually there's a scene with an attempted rape of a younger women which Jones/Cobb can't complete due to drunken impotence). Only problem with that 'fact' is that writer Ron Shelton has admitted he invented the scene entirely, that it had no basis in fact but it sounded to him like something an aging, drunken, angry Cobb might do so it was written in so as to add to the story.

Edgy MD Jul 29 2015 12:36 PM Re: New Hall of Fame voting rules

Well, that sounds like some bad research by Young Guy McClearhead. To be clear, I have nothing against not sending a ballot to writers who haven't had a baseball beat or written on baseball for years. While that set may have a largish overlap with old (or relatively old) guys, it's not the same thing. And there's nothing about having or not having a current baseball beat that logically should be associated with honoring or not honoring the character and sportsmanship criteria.