No One to the HOF 2013

[Can_of_corn]

How long have you been alive? Mazeroski, Kell, Rizzuto... they've all gone in fairly recently and were at least arguably worse than Rice. And Morris, for that matter.

I thought we were discussing the writers. The thread doesn't say "Three Veteran's committee names the only 2013 inductees to the HoF".

Of course the veteran's committee has made worse choices.

[DrungoHazewood]

I thought we were discussing the writers. The thread doesn't say "Three Veteran's committee names the only 2013 inductees to the HoF".

Of course the veteran's committee has made worse choices.

For some reason I thought Kell was a BBWAA selection, but he fell off their ballot six years earlier.

[DrungoHazewood]

Tragic/comic quote from yesterday:

The Hall of Fame has always entrusted the exclusive voting privilege to the Baseball Writers’ Association of America. We remain pleased with their role in evaluating candidates based on the criteria we provide.

I supposed if you wanted to be optimistic you could read "based on the critera we provide" as "based on the incredibly screwed up process we fell into in 1936 and hope to totally overhaul, like, yesterday". But the reality is probably more along the lines of the Hall is run by a bunch of old, rich, white guys who just accept that cigar-chomping newspaper guys are right even when filtered through a bad system, and even when their results freakin' kill the HOF's business model.

[Can_of_corn]

Tragic/comic quote from yesterday:

I supposed if you wanted to be optimistic you could read "based on the critera we provide" as "based on the incredibly screwed up process we fell into in 1936 and hope to totally overhaul, like, yesterday".

What else is he going to say? With the Hall's financial troubles I can't imagine they are at all happy about yesterday's vote.

[PaulFolk]

Our very own Roch Kubatko didn't include Bonds/Clemens/etc. on his ballot:

http://bbwaa.com/13-hof-ballots/

Disgraceful. Not just him, but all of them.

According to that page, voters are not required to make their Hall of Fame ballots public. Why the heck not? I think all the ballots should be revealed, not just those who choose to do so. It would require voters to have to defend their picks.

For instance, I'd love to know who in the world voted for Aaron Sele. Sadly that one hasn't been revealed.

[ShaneDawg85]

If ever you wanted to go to the Hall, plan your visit for this summer, because it'll probably be one of the smallest summers they've had in long time.

[MurphDogg]

If ever you wanted to go to the Hall, plan your visit for this summer, because it'll probably be one of the smallest summers they've had in long time.

Or just go any time when it isn't Hall of Fame weekend...

[DrungoHazewood]

What else is he going to say? With the Hall's financial troubles I can't imagine they are at all happy about yesterday's vote.

"While we respect the job the BBWAA has done for us over the past 80 years, we're disappointed that no one was elected from an exceptionally strong slate of candidates. As always, we continually look at our processes to see if improvements can be made."

According to that page, voters are not required to make their Hall of Fame ballots public. Why the heck not? I think all the ballots should be revealed, not just those who choose to do so. It would require voters to have to defend their picks.

For instance, I'd love to know who in the world voted for Aaron Sele. Sadly that one hasn't been revealed.

Why would a self-policing organization introduce accountability into a process where none has existed before?

If ever you wanted to go to the Hall, plan your visit for this summer, because it'll probably be one of the smallest summers they've had in long time.

Hey, I heard all six living great-grandchildren of Hank O'Day will be there. And if the riot cops aren't lined up they just might get in a scrap with the three guys from the Bad Bill Dahlen fan club, who are enraged that they were unable to bribe the Vet's Committee to induct their guy.

[MikeAD]

It's a real sham if Clemens and Bonds don't get in. The upcoming classes are deep with true Hall of Famers not reaches to make anti-steroid fans happy. The best pitcher and the best hitter of the era (tops all time) deserve to be in.

This is pretty irresponsible. I am fine if they get in later, just so much as there is a later. I am somewhat fine with their being no entrants this year. If you aren't going to vote in the two best why put in guys that deserve it less (stats wise)?

[OFFNY]

.

Hall-of-Famers Happy to see Bonds, Clemens Denied

(Mike Fitzpatrick)

http://news.yahoo.com/hall-famers-happy-see-bonds-clemens-denied-000059263--mlb.html

[Tony-OH]

According to that page, voters are not required to make their Hall of Fame ballots public. Why the heck not? I think all the ballots should be revealed, not just those who choose to do so. It would require voters to have to defend their picks.

For instance, I'd love to know who in the world voted for Aaron Sele. Sadly that one hasn't been revealed.

Agreed, there is no reason not to make every vote public. This would stop some of the silliness like the Sele vote.

[DrungoHazewood]

It's a real sham if Clemens and Bonds don't get in. The upcoming classes are deep with true Hall of Famers not reaches to make anti-steroid fans happy. The best pitcher and the best hitter of the era (tops all time) deserve to be in.

This is pretty irresponsible. I am fine if they get in later, just so much as there is a later. I am somewhat fine with their being no entrants this year. If you aren't going to vote in the two best why put in guys that deserve it less (stats wise)?

I think a few guys get in if they look like computer nerds. Maddux, Glavine, probably Chad Bradford. But for anyone else who looks mildly athletic a sizeable percentage of the Holy Writers will declare them cheaters and be done with them.

The real issue is the coming avalanche. As mentioned before, in 5-10 years there are going to be dozens of almost no-brainer HOFers on the ballot, and a system wholly inadequate to clear such a backlog even without writers with agendas.

[DrungoHazewood]

.

Hall-of-Famers Happy to see Bonds, Clemens Denied

(Mike Fitzpatrick)

http://news.yahoo.com/hall-famers-happy-see-bonds-clemens-denied-000059263--mlb.html

In other words, "Old guys glad those whippersnappers and their newfangled ways put in their place, and also that greenies and corked bats and spitballs are still seen as funny."

[Migrant Redbird]

Hopefully the furor over zero selections will inspire reform of the HOF selection process. Having the BBWA be the electorate made sense when the process was developed, but there is no reason now to exclude the broadcast media representatives (Costas, McCarver, Buck, Morgan, Reynolds, Leiter, etc.), who often watch more games and are more knowledgeable than many of the BBWA membership.

What electorate membership reform won't do is to rationalize the selection process. Neither the media nor the fans have come to terms with how to address the use of PEDs -- confirmed or merely suspected -- in vetting the qualifications for membership. Revamping the electorate membership won't do much to remedy that.

Many of the opinions ventured n forums like this and on the air or web are simply irrational. Mitch Williams opined on MLB Tonight that there should be an absolute ban on HOF membership for those caught using steroids, but compared the use of greenies compared to steroids/HGH as being equivalent to a misdemeanor versus a felony. Sorry, Mitch, but your analogy is seriously flawed. That would be like designating car thefts as misdemeanors and art gallery thefts as felonies because the thieves get more valuable loot. Steroids can give more impressive results than greenies, but they're both illegal and should be given similar weight in assesssing impact on HOF eligibility.

There are several categories of players with respect to PEDs:

1. Those who tested positive for PEDs in a regular test and were suspended (Manny, Palmeiro, Melky Cabrera, etc.)
   
2. Those who tested positive for PEDs in a regular test but escaped on a technicality (Ryan Braun)
   
3. Those who tested positive for PEDs in an anonymous test (ARod, Barry Bonds, etc.)
   
4. Those charged/convicted for PEDs usage/receipt or related crimes (Jason Grimsley, Barry Bonds)
   
5. Those charged in a PEDs investigation but never convicted (Roger Clemens)
   
6. Those implicated in PEDs investigation (Brian Roberts, Kevin Brown, Larry Bigbie)
   
7. Those implicated in PEDs investigations who claim to have
   
8. Those suspected of PEDs usage who've never failed a test or been implicated in an investigation but have confessed (McGwire)
   
9. Those suspected of PEDs usage who've never failed a test or been implicated in an investigation and vehemently deny allegations (Sosa, Bagwell, Piazza)
   
10. PEDs users who've not come under suspicion
    
11. Players who never used PEDs and never came under suspicion, but can't be proven to be clean
    
12. Players who've been proven to have never been involved in PEDs usage. (Population of zero.)
    

Many fans and commentators seem to want to apply a range of sanctions against HOF candidates, depending upon which group they're in. I think they're basically spinning their wheels, because they don't really know.

Should a player who never tested positive but confessed (e.g. McGwire) be penalized more harshly than a player who used steroids and was suspected -- sometimes with very reliable evidence -- but who continues to deny usage (Clemens)? I always emphasized to my kids that misbehavior was bad but lying about it was worse and treated them more leniently if they acknowledged their errors, even if they'd previously denied it. Should we treat adult baseball players who confess any more harshly than those just suspected? That's not rational.

In my opinion, PEDs should be dismissed entirely as a factor in assessing HOF worthiness. Individual voters may tend to discount the performance of some players due to verified or suspected PEDs usage, but the discounting factor needs to be limited because no one knows just how much PEDs have affected player performance, much less exactly which players were involved.

My personal bias is against the admission of relief pitchers. The only reason a pitcher gets delegated to the bullpen (with rare exceptions, like John Smoltz) is because they're regarded as deficient in some area required of starters. Either they only have 1-2 pitches or they lack the stamina to pitch 9 innings or there is some other defect in their game. The only closers I'd consider admitting are those who perform at Eric Gagne's 2003 level for several years.

Perhaps it's time to factor in the us of statistics. For example, maybe those players with a JAWS rating in the top 10 percent overall or in the top 15 percent at their position should only require 60 percent of the votes to get in, while players with lower JAWS ratings might require the current 75 percent?

[ShaneDawg85]

There doesn't seem to be any one truly good way to go about fixing the process. Clearly relying on the writers doesn't help for a whole host of reasons already discussed. I like opening it up to people who played game, but the problem is that some of the living Hall of Famers are no different than the writers (self-serving, ego-driven, agenda driven), including guys like Joe Morgan who don't understand a lot about the game and how it's evolved in the first place. Having the fans vote is nice, somewhat, but All Star game votes show that's a flawed process.

I like mandatory publication of the votes, because it seems to me that if some of the writers are in a forum or medium where they can crow about how they voted and why, there's no reason everyone shouldn't know how all of them voted, thus forcing them to justify their selections or snubs. Save for betting on the game, and any other rule which is explicitly in the rule book as being outlawed, the language in how to vote needs to be amended so that the focus on decisions is solely merit and accomplishments within the game. It won't stop voters from standing on their soapboxes and grandstanding, but in the coming generations of writers I'd hope it would allow for more objectivity and creativity in determining who is worthy.