Presenting your Hall of Fame Voters!

[DrungoHazewood]

From a blog I'd previously never heard of, by way of Fire Joe Morgan, here's a nice little compilation of inane blather about why people with real, live Hall of Fame votes are making the decisions they're making: Click for article.

The combination of these guys with voting and eligibility rules that change annually makes it trivially easy to explain why Hall has become a crazy mishmash of the great, the good, the famous, the connected, and a bunch of 1932 baseball equivalents of Molly Ringwald.

Tracy Ringolsby needs to have his BBWAA card revoked right now. I mean this very minute. Vince Coleman's five best seasons > Tim Raines? That's pretty close to insisting that the sky is green.

[glenn__davis]

Wow, thanks for that link Drungo.

Even for someone who is a novice in sabermetrics, some of those arguments are completely laugable.

[66-70-83-??]

From a blog I'd previously never heard of, by way of Fire Joe Morgan, here's a nice little compilation of inane blather about why people with real, live Hall of Fame votes are making the decisions they're making: Click for article.

The combination of these guys with voting and eligibility rules that change annually makes it trivially easy to explain why Hall has become a crazy mishmash of the great, the good, the famous, the connected, and a bunch of 1932 baseball equivalents of Molly Ringwald.

Tracy Ringolsby needs to have his BBWAA card revoked right now. I mean this very minute. Vince Coleman's five best seasons > Tim Raines? That's pretty close to insisting that the sky is green.

I know it is fun for the "statistical elitists" to mock the voters and fans who "don't get it" and just aren't nearly as smart as they are (obviously ), but it is the Baseball Hall of Fame. It is about the "game".

The object of the "game" is to get runs, HR's, K's, wins, win championships, etc...not to perform well in cherry-picked stat (sometimes obscure) categories.

It isn't the Hall of Arcane Statistical Analysis Category Leaders.

Still, whether you are a smart statistical guru or a stupid casual fan- 95% of each group will pick the same players for the Hall. Looking at the careers of players in total- so called inferior "counting stats" and whatever "in stat" of the day with the stat guru's will still identify the same players almost all the time as being the best.

Despite their shortcomings, they (HOF voters) still get it right almost every time.

[DrungoHazewood]

I know it is fun for the "statistical elitists" to mock the voters and fans who "don't get it" and just aren't nearly as smart as they are (obviously ), but it is the Baseball Hall of Fame. It is about the "game".

The object of the "game" is to get runs, HR's, K's, wins, win championships, etc...not to perform well in cherry-picked stat (sometimes obscure) categories.

It isn't the Hall of Arcane Statistical Analysis Category Leaders.

No, it's the Hall of the Best Players Ever, or if you prefer The Players Who Contributed The Most To Winning Games. And the most accurate way of determining that is through metrics you'll probably refer to as arcane.

The analysis crowd is only elitist in the sense that they've done the legwork and put in the time to figure out who's better than who, and they regard opinions backed by research more highly than opinions backed by hazy memories and old stories.

Still, whether you are a smart statistical guru or a stupid casual fan- 95% of each group will pick the same players for the Hall. Looking at the careers of players in total- so called inferior "counting stats" and whatever "in stat" of the day with the stat guru's will still identify the same players almost all the time as being the best.

Despite their shortcomings, they (HOF voters) still get it right almost every time.

They do get things right most of the time. But that's small comfort to Goose Gossage, Bert Blyleven, Ron Santo, and shortly Tim Raines. That 5% they screw up has included some pretty egregious mistakes.

It doesn't make any sense to sit back and quietly accept a 5% failure rate when we know better, can do better, and have come up with simple, straightforward ways to improve the process.

[66-70-83-??]

No, it's the Hall of the Best Players Ever, or if you prefer The Players Who Contributed The Most To Winning Games. And the most accurate way of determining that is through metrics you'll probably refer to as arcane.

The analysis crowd is only elitist in the sense that they've done the legwork and put in the time to figure out who's better than who, and they regard opinions backed by research more highly than opinions backed by hazy memories and old stories.

They do get things right most of the time. But that's small comfort to Goose Gossage, Bert Blyleven, Ron Santo, and shortly Tim Raines. That 5% they screw up has included some pretty egregious mistakes.

It doesn't make any sense to sit back and quietly accept a 5% failure rate when we know better, can do better, and have come up with simple, straightforward ways to improve the process.

So, it is really that cut and dried who the best players are ? There isn't any room for personal objectivity ?

If the metrics/stats tell us all we need to know- wouldn't it be better to do away with voters and let a computer tell us who gets it and who doesn't ?

Which specific metrics should the HOF voters use that they aren't using ? How do you know some (or even many of them) aren't using them ?

There are plenty of "elitists" at BP, for ex. And how do we know that their metrics are trustworthy ? They, unlike many in the SABR community, are not transparent. They will not allow scrutiny (and do NOT tolerate any criticism) of their methods.

[66-70-83-??]

You don't even need to be a statistical guru to see the faulty logic in most of these statements. I don't expect the voters to understand college level statistics, but I do expect them to be able to use basic logic. The quotes in that column should be embarrassing to the people who wrote them. It would be nice if the people who are getting paid to express their opinions for a living were able to express those opinions in a competent manner. Being colorful and folksy is nice, but it shouldn't preclude or trump logic and reason.

Which statements are you referring to ? While I don't agree with all of them, they aren't that bad.

Besides, those quotes represent approx 1% of the voters from the BBWAA.

I think you are over the top a little with your criticism of the writers.

The blogger with an agenda cherry-picked a line or two from an entire column.

I bet that it is likely that if you read the writer/voters entire column might add more context to the selected snippet and not make it look so crazy?

I quickly read Heyman and Shaughnessy's..... I don't agree with everything they do but in no way did they embarrass themselves.

[DrungoHazewood]

So, it is really that cut and dried who the best players are ? There isn't any room for personal objectivity ?

Sure there is. But goofy stories and anecdotes shouldn't trump mounds of data. There isn't enough personal wiggle room in the whole universe to come to the conclusion that Vince Coleman was better than Tim Raines. That's sloppy journalism from someone who ought to take their job more seriously.

If the metrics/stats tell us all we need to know- wouldn't it be better to do away with voters and let a computer tell us who gets it and who doesn't ?

No, I think robots would be better. But I suppose robots are a kind of computer, so maybe you're right. On second thought, maybe robots with alien brains would be best of all.

What the heck do you think the computers are doing? They're taking the data mined by people who've done research, feeding them into formulas devised by people, and crunching the numbers. Computers are just tools to make the work go faster.

I hear the ceremony for the 1897 MVP was a hoot. Babbage's Computational Difference Engine brought down the house.

Which specific metrics should the HOF voters use that they aren't using ? How do you know some (or even many of them) aren't using them?

There's a whole host of them from a bunch of different sources. Some open, some closed, some hard to understand, some not. But they usually agree, and most any of them are infinitely better than "I'm voting for Goose Gossage because he was nice to me in 1977."

There are plenty of "elitists" at BP, for ex. And how do we know that their metrics are trustworthy ? They, unlike many in the SABR community, are not transparent. They will not allow scrutiny (and do NOT tolerate any criticism) of their methods.

Have you tried to engage any of them in a debate? Emailed them? Asked questions in a chat? I have, and I've gotten answers often as not.

Their metrics are trustworthy because they pass the BS test. They make sense. Their runs created and saved estimates add up to believable totals. The ones that don't always make sense, like Clay Davenport's Fielding Runs, are the ones that we debate, and discuss, and try to figure out why. We give less weight to the stuff that doesn't always seem to make sense.

People who do the work to try to get to an objective truth deserve to have their conclusions mean more than those whose opinions are based on nothing more than feelings.

[66-70-83-??]

Sure there is. But goofy stories and anecdotes shouldn't trump mounds of data. There isn't enough personal wiggle room in the whole universe to come to the conclusion that Vince Coleman was better than Tim Raines. That's sloppy journalism from someone who ought to take their job more seriously.

No, I think robots would be better. But I suppose robots are a kind of computer, so maybe you're right. On second thought, maybe robots with alien brains would be best of all.

What the heck do you think the computers are doing? They're taking the data mined by people who've done research, feeding them into formulas devised by people, and crunching the numbers. Computers are just tools to make the work go faster.

I hear the ceremony for the 1897 MVP was a hoot. Babbage's Computational Difference Engine brought down the house.

There's a whole host of them from a bunch of different sources. Some open, some closed, some hard to understand, some not. But they usually agree, and most any of them are infinitely better than "I'm voting for Goose Gossage because he was nice to me in 1977."

Have you tried to engage any of them in a debate? Emailed them? Asked questions in a chat? I have, and I've gotten answers often as not.

Their metrics are trustworthy because they pass the BS test. They make sense. Their runs created and saved estimates add up to believable totals. The ones that don't always make sense, like Clay Davenport's Fielding Runs are the ones that we debate, and discuss, and try to figure out why. We give less weight to the stuff that doesn't always seem to make sense.

People who do the work to try to get to an objective truth deserve to have their conclusions mean more than those whose opinions are based on nothing more than feelings.

I agree. But, how many BBWAA voters only use "feelings" in determining who they vote for.

You can have voters use any stats/feelings/metrics that you want- but there is always going to be a difference in the interpretion.

We have had this debate before. BBWAA has like 550 members voting- that is enough to weed out the nuts votes and select the right players almost everytime.

Baseball is an imperfect game. Right from "Play Ball"- the imperfection starts with the unique human ump and his personal interpretation of the strike zone.

There is no way to make perfection out of imperfection. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The HOF process isn't perfect, but it ain't broke either.

[DrungoHazewood]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The HOF process isn't perfect, but it ain't broke either.

It's been broke since day one. The process was "designed" in an ad hoc, off-the-cuff manner, often by people who had no knowledge or even a desire to know what kind of voting systems work, and the BBWAA was picked to do the voting because in 1936 they were the best of a limited set of options.

It's nearly a miracle that it comes out with the right answer as often as it does.

If you were to design a Hall of Fame voting system from scratch today there's no way it looks like what exists today. Its voting members would be far more inclusive, and its voting system would be much better designed. And we wouldn't be settling for 85% or 90% (or whatever) accuracy.

[RShack]

It's been broke since day one. The process was "designed" in an ad hoc, off-the-cuff manner, often by people who had no knowledge or even a desire to know what kind of voting systems work, and the BBWAA was picked to do the voting because in 1936 they were the best of a limited set of options.

It's nearly a miracle that it comes out with the right answer as often as it does.

If you were to design a Hall of Fame voting system from scratch today there's no way it looks like what exists today. Its voting members would be far more inclusive, and its voting system would be much better designed. And we wouldn't be settling for 85% or 90% (or whatever) accuracy.

In fairness, they were inventing a new thing, had no compelling model to go by, and just sorta made it up as they went. It's not like they had a master plan to do it wrong. Plus, most of the stuff that people do around here to judge value didn't even exist then. So, all in all, I think it's all very understandable.

[BaltimoreTerp]

The fact that players like Mays and Mantle and DiMaggio not only didn't get 100% of the vote, but in many cases couldn't even get in first-ballot, should point out the flaws in the system.

[mweb]

I agree. But, how many BBWAA voters only use "feelings" in determining who they vote for.

You can have voters use any stats/feelings/metrics that you want- but there is always going to be a difference in the interpretion.

We have had this debate before. BBWAA has like 550 members voting- that is enough to weed out the nuts votes and select the right players almost everytime.

Baseball is an imperfect game. Right from "Play Ball"- the imperfection starts with the unique human ump and his personal interpretation of the strike zone.

There is no way to make perfection out of imperfection. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The HOF process isn't perfect, but it ain't broke either.

Have you read Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame by Bill James? If you have, I'm, not sure how you can say it's not broke, and if you haven't, I'd reserve judgement.

And which statments aren't that bad?

I would say they're all very bad and laughable.

It's pretty bad when many people on here would be more logical than some actual voters if they were given a chance to vote.

[66-70-83-??]

Have you read Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame by Bill James? If you have, I'm, not sure how you can say it's not broke, and if you haven't, I'd reserve judgement.

And which statments aren't that bad?

I would say they're all very bad and laughable.

It's pretty bad when many people on here would be more logical than some actual voters if they were given a chance to vote.

Yes I have read that book.

But, it has been a long time. Besides, since when does Bill James speak gospel. He is just one man with his opinion.

You are missing my points-

1) at the end of the day, despite whatever problems- they still elect the right players. Having 550 or so voters waters down the occasional "nut" vote.

2) They are "all" very bad and laughable ???? Then it is obvious that you didn't read the entire articles from which a line or two was snipped.

Is that fair ? Do ya think we could look through your posts and cut a line here and there and make you look laughable ? Easily.

The "reserve judgement" line is laughable. Are you serious ? Never mind the arrogance in such a statement. But "reserve judgement" on a topic about the HOF because I didnt read some book that was published 15 years ago ? LOL.

If that is the case, there is a hell of alot of things that YOU should reserve judgement about. Should I post all sorts of "books" about topics that you spout off about everyday and tell you to "reserve judgement" until you read them ?

It would never cross my mind (ever) to tell you or anyone else to "reserve judgement" on a topic for any reason, let alone for not reading some 15 yr old book.

[66-70-83-??]

The fact that players like Mays and Mantle and DiMaggio not only didn't get 100% of the vote, but in many cases couldn't even get in first-ballot, should point out the flaws in the system.

I have never heard Mays or any other player enshrined in the HOF complain about not getting 100%.

If that is all you have to complain about the "system" doesn't that speak for itself ?

There are always voters with "side issues" or protest votes for whatever reason. It is human nature. And as long as humans are involved- you are never going to get 550 to agree on anything.

If there were 5 people voting that would be a big problem, but there are like 550.

Who was left out that should be in ? Some people claim Santo, some Blyleven, some Gossage. Some even say all three. Some say Gossage and Blyleven......

It doesn't matter who or what you change- as long as there are people involved there will still be players left out who some think should be in, some who get in that some think should not be in....

[DrungoHazewood]

Yes I have read that book.

But, it has been a long time. Besides, since when does Bill James speak gospel. He is just one man with his opinion.

He's just one man with an opinion that he formed by doing years of research and writing the definitive book on the inner workings of the Hall of Fame. It's like the rest of this thread - the guys who do the legwork have opinions that deserve more respect than those who don't.

In any case, it's not like there's a lot of room left for interpretation and opinion when the facts of the matter are that the HOF voting processes, procedures, and eligibility rules have changed constantly ever since the 1930s. When you have no consistency in processes you can't expect consistency in results.