Jump to content

Presenting your Hall of Fame Voters!


DrungoHazewood

Recommended Posts

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.

I like Bill James. It was a good book.

I have read virtually everything he has published.

But, he can be wrong, imo.

For ex. he blasted the Dowd report up and down. He carried Pete Rose's water for years only to be embarrassed in the end for it when Rose admitted to gambling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 35
  • Created
  • Last Reply

How about this system for changing the HOF voting......

Instead of just baseball writers lets also have fans, players, baseball execs and baseball scholars also get to vote on who gets nominated.

Each group can nominate players.

Players (anyone who ever played mlb) vote in August.

Fans vote in Sept.

BBWAA/Media vote in Oct.

Scholars vote in Nov.

Execs/Professionals vote in Dec.

The top vote getter from each group becomes a nominee (max of 1 per group in each yr) for that year but isn't eligible until the next year to get into the HOF.

Players nominated from one group (Fans choice, for ex) must be ratified (75% or more of the vote) by at least 3 of the other groups.

By making several separate voting groups "sign off" on a player, it will virtually eliminate any fluke selections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was a pretty good blog entry, thanks for sharing it Drungo.

Just goes to show what happens when the most biased people (sportswriters) get to have a say-so when voting on something like the HoF.

I'm not quite sure how to fix it since I think people will make outlandish arguments like these no matter what. I'd really like to see sportswriters stripped of the power, though. They're an elitist, self righteous and pretentious bunch who can't separate their personal feelings towards players from what they did on the ballfield.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :confused:

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.

No they don't elect all the right players.

I did read some of the entire articles, I was just talking about the quotes picked out by the blogger, that's what I thought you were talking about as well. So you do think all of those quotes are really bad?

And yes it is fair in this case, I don't think those quotes were taken out of context, and they're stupid regardless of what else was said. And no I don't think you could do what you say easily at all, especially on any posts making a case for or against a player for the HOF or an individual award, or whatever.

It's not arrogant nor laughable at all, but if you want to be a jerk about it, fine, be my guest. I just think that book does a great job of showing how flawed the HOF is, and one should read it before assuming it's not flawed.

Go right ahead, give me some examples.

I never realized that telling someone to reserve judgement is just an insult.:confused: I'm glad you turned this into a personal thing instead of sticking to the topic, bravo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No they don't elect all the right players.

I did read some of the entire articles, I was just talking about the quotes picked out by the blogger, that's what I thought you were talking about as well. So you do think all of those quotes are really bad?

And yes it is fair in this case, I don't think those quotes were taken out of context, and they're stupid regardless of what else was said. And no I don't think you could do what you say easily at all, especially on any posts making a case for or against a player for the HOF or an individual award, or whatever.

It's not arrogant nor laughable at all, but if you want to be a jerk about it, fine, be my guest. I just think that book does a great job of showing how flawed the HOF is, and one should read it before assuming it's not flawed.

Go right ahead, give me some examples.

I never realized that telling someone to reserve judgement is just an insult.:confused: I'm glad you turned this into a personal thing instead of sticking to the topic, bravo.

I did read it.

And again- I have granted that the system is flawed, but not "broken" because at the end of the day they still elect the right players most of the time. Again- any system involving people is not going to end the arguments of who does or doesn't get in.

I offered one plan on how to change the voting for HOF in my last post in this thread. What do you think about it ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just stumbled upon this thread and was quite amused by the blog that Drungo linked. Whether or not you believe that the Bill James school of logic should be the predominant determinent for HOF induction or not, you have to agree that the writers quoted in that blog should be ashamed.

The HOF in Cooperstown is a symbol of America's Pasttime. The amount of history and contained within those walls makes it one of the must-see places for any baseball fan in their lifetime. Furthermore, because baseball is such an individualized sport in terms of contributions, it's probably the most note-worthy of any sports' HOF.

Because of that, these writers should feel PRIVILEGED to be allowed to vote for various players' inductions. They should take their job extremely seriously and approach casting their ballots with great care.

Woody Paige, however, is acting like a high-school sophomore voting for the hottest girl in school to Homecoming Queen. Quite upsetting if you ask me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just stumbled upon this thread and was quite amused by the blog that Drungo linked. Whether or not you believe that the Bill James school of logic should be the predominant determinent for HOF induction or not, you have to agree that the writers quoted in that blog should be ashamed.

The HOF in Cooperstown is a symbol of America's Pasttime. The amount of history and contained within those walls makes it one of the must-see places for any baseball fan in their lifetime. Furthermore, because baseball is such an individualized sport in terms of contributions, it's probably the most note-worthy of any sports' HOF.

Because of that, these writers should feel PRIVILEGED to be allowed to vote for various players' inductions. They should take their job extremely seriously and approach casting their ballots with great care.

Woody Paige, however, is acting like a high-school sophomore voting for the hottest girl in school to Homecoming Queen. Quite upsetting if you ask me.

I bet the vast majority do take it seriously.

Paige gets some slack for Gossage considering they are good freinds. Hell, if I had a friend on the ballot I would vote for him too.:P

I read most of the columns that these lines were taken from in the opening post. Shaughnessy, for ex, actually lays out both sides of the argument for/against Rice- but he doesn't get any credit for that by the blog? We all could be cut and pasted into morons.

These baseball writers (Paige, Shaughnessy, etc) have to write columns that people want to read daily and that often means being opinionated, sometimes controversial, entertaining,etc..... so some of that plays into what they write in the columns. Considering that they have to write columns to help sell papers, even when they write stuff like Paige in lots of his columns doesn't mean that when the put pencil to paper and cast their ballot that they do not take it seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why doesn't a prominent member in the statistically-inclined community organize a serious group of analysts to vote themselves? If prominent SABR members, BP writers, THT writers etc are involved, it could be big. They'd get nationally mocked by BBWAA writers, but they'd also get a lot of respect from a lot of people, insofar that their awards could be nearly as anticipated as the BBWAA's. Analysts like Neyer could finally get a HOF vote somewhere. And they wouldn't have big ceremonies but still, it'd be pretty awesome. Not just HOF voting either, but MVP, CY, ROY as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did read it.

And again- I have granted that the system is flawed, but not "broken" because at the end of the day they still elect the right players most of the time. Again- any system involving people is not going to end the arguments of who does or doesn't get in.

I offered one plan on how to change the voting for HOF in my last post in this thread. What do you think about it ?

Yeah, I saw that you read it, I was talking about my point of view thinking you hadn't.

It'd be hard to find a system that didn't elect the right players most of the time, that's not much of an accomplishment. I think it would be difficult for the system to be much worse.

Of course there's always going to be arguments about who should or shouldn't be in because there's many borderline guys, but the problems go deeper than that imo, and there are many people who have a vote who absolutely should not.

Your system would likely be better, but the fans would produce poor voting results, and the players probably would too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

WTF is personal objectivity? Is that what we're calling subjectivity these days?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the viewpoint of stats, does Brooks belong in the HOF? Or is he there because of sentimental love of his glove-legend? He hit pretty good every now and then, but let's face it, he was no Mike Schmidt. How far apart are Brooks and Belanger in terms of deserving it, stat-wise? (I don't know the answer, these are real questions, not trick questions.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the viewpoint of stats, does Brooks belong in the HOF? Or is he there because of sentimental love of his glove-legend? He hit pretty good every now and then, but let's face it, he was no Mike Schmidt. How far apart are Brooks and Belanger in terms of deserving it, stat-wise? (I don't know the answer, these are real questions, not trick questions.)

It's not very close. Brooks had a OPS+ of 104 for his career (hurt a bunch by his 35-40 year old years.) Belanger was at 68. Belanger maxed out at league-average.

Brooks was as high as 145 and hovered around 120 for the bulk of his career.

Both were great fielders. Of course, Brooks is considered legendary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not very close. Brooks had a OPS+ of 104 for his career (hurt a bunch by his 35-40 year old years.) Belanger was at 68. Belanger maxed out at league-average.

Brooks was as high as 145 and hovered around 120 for the bulk of his career.

Both were great fielders. Of course, Brooks is considered legendary.

OK, but do the numbers say that Brooks belong in the HOF, or is that just a sentimental attachment to his glove-legend? Did his glove generate enough DR's to make up for his barely-above-average career-bat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, but do the numbers say that Brooks belong in the HOF, or is that just a sentimental attachment to his glove-legend? Did his glove generate enough DR's to make up for his barely-above-average career-bat?

Right - well, I don't have the numbers. How do you measure who belongs in the HOF - as a numerical contribution?

The best I can say is that - all things considered - Brooks was better. As his 115 lifetime WARP was about 50 points higher than Belanger's.

It's a little below Brett (130) and well behind Schmidt (155). But it's pretty good for a 3B. Belanger's isn't good for anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...