OT - Baseball HOF - Voting is STUPID

[HoustonHornedFrog]

No, I'm not talking about whether they should ignore PEDs and I'm not going to debate whether one player or another has the qualifications to be in the HOF or not, but the way the voting for the honor goes is a joke.
Now outside your Hank Aarons, Reggie Jacksons and Nolan Ryans who pull > 90% of the vote their first year, the way the voters string guys along for years is laughable.

You aren't eligible until 5 years after you have finished playing, so once you are on the ballot it isn't like there is anything you can do to improve your stats.

So, you would think that if a guy is worthy of HOF they should get the 75% need or not. Maybe a few votes move from one year to the next but there is no rational reason for a player to go from 41% of votes to 79% in four years.

The whole, he is a HOF player but not a "first ballot" HOFer, is just stupid. It seems that it was more pronouned in the old days than now, but in the last few years Barry Larkin went from 51.6% of vote in 2010 to 86.4% in 2012. Boy he sure got a lot better in two years sitting at home.

 

[jake102]

I've always thought it's quite strange how somebody gets more votes as time goes on. Why not vote them year one whether you think they deserve to be in the HOF or not? And then don't change your answer. Seems pretty simple.

 

[tcujsauce]

For whatever reason, they hold the first ballot induction in very high regard. So, I think it's likely that Biggio gets in next year, but they didn't deem him worthy of the first ballot Honor. Wondering if they let Greg Maddox or Tom Glavine in as first ballot guys next year. I think Big Hurt is also up.

 

[DangerFrog]

NFL does the same thing, but not as much. Of course, we all know the only first ballot HOFer, right?

 

[HoustonHornedFrog]

For whatever reason, they hold the first ballot induction in very high regard. So, I think it's likely that Biggio gets in next year, but they didn't deem him worthy of the first ballot Honor. Wondering if they let Greg Maddox or Tom Glavine in as first ballot guys next year. I think Big Hurt is also up.

Maddox ought to be a sure thing first ballot.

 

[leofrog]

Maddox ought to be a sure thing first ballot.

Agreed.

 

[82Frog]

I think the players already in the HOF should be the ones who vote.

 

[Delmonico]

NFL does the same thing, but not as much. Of course, we all know the only first ballot HOFer, right?

They all do it, because not all Hall of Famers are created equal. Really that simple. Hell, the hockey Hall waived the waiting period for Gretzky because he was BEYOND first ballot worthy.

And this thread wouldnt exist if it werent a Houston player involved. I dont see anybody complaining because Mike Piazza fell short.

 

[Deep Purple]

Guess I'll depart from the majority sentiment thus far and say I think there's actually a very legit reason for the way the HoF voting is done.

A player's true impact on the game is often best assessed and appreciated only after a significant passage of time has occurred and it can be viewed from the context of a larger scope. Deciding votes that are too proximate to the player's actual performance frequently produce skewed results because voters are reacting only to recent memories and can't yet see the forest for the trees.

As an example, look at the controversial choices that periodically result from the immediacy of Heisman Trophy voting. School partisanship aside, does anybody objectively think that Chris Weinke deserved the 2000 Heisman over LaDainian Tomlinson? I'm sure Weinke still has his advocates, but now that we have a larger perspective on Weinke vs. Tomlinson, I doubt Weinke advocates are in the majority anywhere except perhaps in Florida. I'd even argue that most fans probably feel Manti Te'o should have won over Johnny Manziel in 2012.

It's kind of like the writing of history. There's an old saw that says the true history of any event can't be written until at least 20 years after the event, when the contextual record is more complete and the perspective is much larger.

 

[Pharm Frog]

It's kind of like the writing of history. There's an old saw that says the true history of any event can't be written until at least 20 years after the event, when the contextual record is more complete and the perspective is much larger.

Never heard the 20-year paradigm. I agree with the gist but would personally prefer a much longer time lapse. This brings in the argument over what is "contemporary history" and if this concept is actually mutually exclusive. Topic has become more relevant to me in the past year after I suggested to my former academic mentor that my research into desegregation history (mid-50s) be re-examined.

 

[Deep Purple]

This brings in the argument over what is "contemporary history" and if this concept is actually mutually exclusive.

A never-ending argument in historical circles. I'm mostly in the "mutually exclusive" school. Events that are too near in focus can almost never be assessed in proper historical context.

In 1998-99, many of us thought the Impeachment of Bill Clinton was a major historical event, since only one previous president had been impeached in more than two centuries of US history. Yet it has already receded to a minor historical footnote, much like the 1868 impeachment of Andrew Johnson. In fact, I'm of the opinion that current history research is gradually rehabilitating the image of Clinton and his presidency. His administration may have ended in disgrace, but I seriously doubt it will be historically preserved in disgrace.

 

[jake102]

I'd even argue that most fans probably feel Manti Te'o should have won over Johnny Manziel in 2012.

You're gonna have to explain this a little more... before the bowl games there were probably 25% of people thought Manti Te'o (hawaiian for Missed Tackle) should win the Heisman... maybe 33%. After the bowl games probably .25% of people think MT should have won the Heisman.

I understand the scope of history argument, it's clearly why it's the way it is. But by adding perspective, I think you can also find yourself forgetting the moments and details that mattered and instead rely on statistics more than you should.

 

[cdsfrog]

You're gonna have to explain this a little more... before the bowl games there were probably 25% of people thought Manti Te'o (hawaiian for Missed Tackle) should win the Heisman... maybe 33%. After the bowl games probably .25% of people think MT should have won the Heisman.

I understand the scope of history argument, it's clearly why it's the way it is. But by adding perspective, I think you can also find yourself forgetting the moments and details that mattered and instead rely on statistics more than you should.

Agree. He played horrendous in that game.

 

[God Dog]

I'm fine with the system the baseball hall of fame uses.

 

[Endless Purple]

For me, it is pretty much the last straw for me and MLB. If the final numbers had Biggio out because too many voters decided to turn in blank cards out of some form of protest, that is stupid. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater as the saying goes.


PS.. RSF, you can always start a thread for Piazza if you feel he needs one. :smile:

 

[HoustonHornedFrog]

And this thread wouldnt exist if it werent a Houston player involved. I dont see anybody complaining because Mike Piazza fell short.

Did you even bother to read the original post. This isn't specifically about Biggio or Piazza, it is about the way the BBWAA elects people to the HOF. From all historical evidence, both Biggio and Piazza will be in the HOF.

 

[HoustonHornedFrog]

A never-ending argument in historical circles. I'm mostly in the "mutually exclusive" school. Events that are too near in focus can almost never be assessed in proper historical context. In 1998-99, many of us thought the Impeachment of Bill Clinton was a major historical event, since only one previous president had been impeached in more than two centuries of US history. Yet it has already receded to a minor historical footnote, much like the 1868 impeachment of Andrew Johnson. In fact, I'm of the opinion that current history research is gradually rehabilitating the image of Clinton and his presidency. His administration may have ended in disgrace, but I seriously doubt it will be historically preserved in disgrace.

Your premise may be valid but we aren't talking about world history we are talking about baseball.
They wait 5 years for a player to be eligible. That is enough time to judge. If you go back and look at what has happened over the years. Time after time, a player gets barely 50% vote one year and within two years they are in the HOF with over 75%. Do you really think there is vastly different historical perspective on a player's impact on the game 7 years after he quit playing than there was 5 years after he quit?

I'd be willing to bet that if you went and polled the people who voted for Barry Larkin in 2012 (when he was on 86.4% of the ballots) that didn't vote for him in 2010 (when he was only on 51.6% of the ballots) the vast majority of them would say that they knew they would vote for Larkin on a future ballot but just didn't think he was a "first ballot" HOFer. Not one in 10, I would bet, would tell you that within that 2 years, they gained some new insight into Larkin as a player or had a better perspective on where he stood in the history of the game. It is because they had their own agendas.