BBTF's Primate Studies Discussion :: Hey, You! Get Off of My Ballot!

Primate Studies
— Where BTF's Members Investigate the Grand Old Game

Thursday, December 14, 2006

Hey, You! Get Off of My Ballot! – Out in the Cold in 2007

You may have heard it said that a civilization is judged by how it treats its weakest members. The care and concern shown for those on the margins of a society reflect the quality of those leading it.

Compare this to how the BBWAA treats those on the margins of the Hall of Fame. There are now officially 196 players from MLB enshrined in the Hall. Most of these have deficiencies that make them less-than-obvious choices, leaving them open to arguments that they don’t belong with the Hall’s greats. At the same time, there are a hundred guys outside the Hall who also fit in to that class. The challenge for the electors is to continually evaluate the players on the in/out margin and determine who should rise above the rest.

Unfortunately, the system in use does not allow them to do this. Many players around the Hall’s margins are quickly dropped from consideration. Indeed, there are many constraints that discourage the writers from performing a continuous evaluation of candidates. The most pernicious of these is the 5% rule. Due to this rule, nearly every year there are quality candidates dismissed after only one year of consideration.

The 5% rule was instituted by the BBWAA for its 1979 balloting. Like most other changes to the election system, it was instituted not as a result of a systematic study to improve the process, but as an appeasement to outside criticism. When Milt Pappas was denied eligibility by the ballot screeners, the resulting hue and cry allowed him on the ballot, but from then on candidates would have to receive at least, oh let’s see…um, 5% of the vote to be considered in the future. (Pappas was dropped after 1979, drawing only 1.2% support.)

Well, shucks, you would think any candidate worth a second look would be able to pull 5% of the vote his way. Not so. In fact, there are many hall of famers who polled less than 5% in their first year eligible. The most recent examples of this are Bobby Doerr (1956) 2.6%, Ralph Kiner (1962) 3.1%, Hal Newhouser (1962) 2.5%, Larry Doby (1966) 2.3%, and Richie Ashburn (1968) 2.1%. I’ll demonstrate here how there is often little difference between those the Hall elects, those who continue on the ballot, and those who are cut down by the 5% rule.

We’ll focus on candidates rejected by the 5% rule who retired from 1986 to 2000. These players won’t be considered by the BBWAA in 2007; neither are they eligible for the veterans committee election that year.

We’ll look at their career value in two renowned comprehensive stats: Wins Above Replacement Player (WARP3) from Baseball Prospectus and Win Shares (WS) from Bill James. I’ve combined them together into one WARP-WinShares Number (WWN), using the Power-Speed Number formula. The precise formulas I used are these.

For position players: WWN = (2*(WARP3)*(WS/3.1)) ÷ ((WARP3)+(WS/3.1))

For pitchers: WWN = (2*(WARP3)*(WS/2.56)) ÷ ((WARP3)+(WS/2.56))

This formulas attempt to give the two stats equal weight. In recent decades, the career WS of outstanding players is around three times their career WARP3, on average; close to 2.5 for pitchers.

Here is the “master list”. Listed are 15 holdover candidates who will appear on the BBWAA ballot for 2007 (marked “b”), plus 50 other candidates for the HOF, retiring from 1986 to 2000, who meet one of these criteria: 1) have a WWN of 80 or better; 2) received at least 2% in one year in BBWAA balloting. Plus a couple others.

 
Po                 Yrs Pct  WS  WARP3  WWN

1 Bert Blyleven     b  ---- 339 144.3 138.1
4 Lou Whitaker      1  2.9% 351 121.0 117.0
5 Darrell Evans     1  1.7% 363 116.6 116.8
9 Dwight Evans      3 10.4% 347 115.9 113.9
4 Bobby Grich       1  2.6% 329 120.3 112.8
1 Tommy John        b  ---- 289 109.2 111.0
6 Alan Trammell     b  ---- 318 120.8 110.9
8 Andre Dawson      b  ---- 340 108.6 109.1
4 Willie Randolph   1  1.1% 312 112.9 106.4
5 Graig Nettles     4  8.4% 321 108.1 105.8
3 Will Clark        1  4.4% 331 104.4 105.6
3 Keith Hernandez   9 10.8% 311 108.9 104.4
5 Buddy Bell        1  1.7% 301 109.7 103.0
1 Frank Tanana      1  0.0% 241 110.5 101.7
2 Ted Simmons       1  3.7% 315  97.9  99.7
8 Brett Butler      1  0.4% 295  99.2  97.1
7 Jose Cruz         1  0.4% 313  93.3  97.0
6 Dave Concepcion   b  ---- 269 109.2  96.7
9 Jack Clark        1  1.5% 316  91.8  96.6
8 Dale Murphy       b  ---- 294  94.3  94.6
1 Rick Reuschel     1  0.4% 240  95.2  94.5
9 Dave Parker       b  ---- 327  85.0  94.1
5 Ron Cey           1  1.9% 280  96.7  93.4
7 Brian Downing     1  0.4% 298  90.5  93.2
1 Charlie Hough     1  0.8% 233  95.2  93.1
4 Tony Phillips     1  0.2% 268  97.9  91.8
5 Toby Harrah       1  0.2% 287  90.7  91.6
8 Cesar Cedeno      1  0.5% 296  87.7  91.4
1 Dennis Martinez   1  3.2% 233  91.5  91.3
1 Jack Morris       b  ---- 225  90.4  89.1
8 Chet Lemon        1  0.2% 265  92.4  88.8
7 Jim Rice          b  ---- 282  86.4  88.6
1 Rich Gossage      b  ---- 223  90.0  88.5
9 Chili Davis       1  0.6% 285  85.3  88.5
8 Fred Lynn         2  5.5% 280  85.9  88.1
7 George Foster     4  6.9% 269  87.5  87.1
3 Steve Garvey      b  ---- 279  84.0  86.9
5 Gary Gaetti       1  0.8% 249  92.5  86.0
3 Don Mattingly     b  ---- 263  85.4  85.1
1 Dave Stieb        1  1.4% 210  88.1  85.0
1 Orel Hershiser    b  ---- 210  87.8  84.8
5 Tim Wallach       1  0.2% 248  88.5  84.0
2 Lance Parrish     1  1.7% 248  86.5  83.1
7 Albert Belle      b  ---- 243  86.0  82.0
1 Vida Blue         4  8.7% 202  80.2  79.5
0 Don Baylor        2  2.6% 262  71.6  77.5
9 Ken Griffey       1  4.7% 259  71.0  76.8
9 Darryl Strawberry 1  1.2% 252  72.0  76.4
1 Dwight Gooden     1  3.3% 187  79.2  76.0
8 Willie Wilson     1  2.0% 237  75.4  75.9
4 Frank White       1  3.8% 211  83.3  74.9
3 Pedro Guerrero    1  1.3% 246  69.0  73.8
5 Bill Madlock      1  4.5% 242  69.2  73.4
1 Lee Smith         b  ---- 198  82.1  71.8
1 Ron Guidry        9  8.8% 174  75.8  71.7
7 Joe Carter        1  3.8% 240  66.5  71.5
7 Kirk Gibson       1  2.5% 218  68.9  69.6
3 Bill Buckner      1  2.1% 226  66.0  69.3
2 Bob Boone         5  7.7% 210  69.8  68.8
1 Fernan Valenzuela 2  6.3% 168  70.8  68.1
8 Willie McGee      2  5.0% 224  61.6  66.5
1 Jeff Reardon      1  4.8% 157  61.0  61.2
1 Dave Stewart      2  7.4% 141  62.7  58.6
1 Dan Quisenberry   1  3.8% 157  53.9  57.4
1 Jim Abbott        1  2.5%  86  39.7  36.4

Po: position Yrs: years eligible before being disqualified (b: received over 5% from BBWAA in 2006) Pct: best year support in BBWAA voting Clearly, most of these are not hall of famers. But I think you can make an argument for them, so they all should be in the conversation. Most of these players are better than the worst guys in the Hall. Let’s look at recent hall of famers as well. Of the 55 HOFers retiring since 1966, here are those who rank in the bottom quarter using WWN:


Po                 Yrs Pct  WS  WARP3  WWN
1 Don Drysdale      h  ---- 258 101.1 100.9
6 Luis Aparicio     h  ---- 293 104.2  99.1
1 Whitey Ford       h  ---- 261  95.7  98.7
1 Hoyt Wilhelm      h  ---- 256  96.8  98.4
7 Lou Brock         h  ---- 348  87.1  98.1
1 Jim Bunning       h  ---- 257  94.3  97.3
1 Juan Marichal     h  ---- 263  90.3  96.1
3 Orlando Cepeda    h  ---- 310  86.7  92.9
8 Kirby Puckett     h  ---- 281  91.1  90.9
4 Bill Mazeroski    h  ---- 219  98.8  82.4
1 Rollie Fingers    h  ---- 188  81.4  77.2
1 Catfish Hunter    h  ---- 206  73.9  77.0
1 Sandy Koufax      h  ---- 194  72.0  73.8
1 Bruce Sutter      h  ---- 168  57.8  61.5

Obviously, I’m not saying that WWN is the final word on players’ worth. Players with short, high peak careers do not rank well; neither do relief pitchers. But I think it’s a really strong initial indicator. If your Favorite Candidate is in the low 90’s or worse, you got some ‘splainin’ to do. If a player is at 100 or more, the question to ask is, “Why shouldn’t this guy be in the hall of fame?”

Unfortunately, this presentation is unlikely to persuade the Powers That Be to repeal the 5% rule. When your criteria for the Hall are “I know one when I see one,” and “Hey, I played the game,” any argument based on sophisticated analysis will get a brief hearing. It’s this type of entrenched ignorance that leads to injustices, both in hall of fame voting and in our world.

Daniel Greenia Posted: December 14, 2006 at 08:48 AM | 47 comment(s)
Related News: Hall of Fame

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 1 pages

1. Mike Green Posted: December 14, 2006 at 10:13 AM (#2261111)

Any system that has Blyleven, Whitaker, the Evanses and Grich at the top of the wrongly excluded list gets my approval.

2. Misirlou is the new market inefficiency Posted: December 14, 2006 at 10:27 AM (#2261120)

Compare this to how the BBWAA treats those on the margins of the Hall of Fame. There are now officially 196 players from MLB enshrined in the Hall. Most of these have deficiencies that make them less-than-obvious choices, leaving them open to arguments that they don’t belong with the Hall’s greats. At the same time, there are a hundred guys outside the Hall who also fit in to that class. The challenge for the electors is to continually evaluate the players on the in/out margin and determine who should rise above the rest.

and

Well, shucks, you would think any candidate worth a second look would be able to pull 5% of the vote his way. Not so. In fact, there are many hall of famers who polled less than 5% in their first year eligible. The most recent examples of this are Bobby Doerr (1956) 2.6%, Ralph Kiner (1962) 3.1%, Hal Newhouser (1962) 2.5%, Larry Doby (1966) 2.3%, and Richie Ashburn (1968) 2.1%. I’ll demonstrate here how there is often little difference between those the Hall elects, those who continue on the ballot, and those who are cut down by the 5% rule.

The problem here is that you are conflating who the BBWAA rejects and who the VC elects. There is no way that most (50% + 1) of the BBWAA electees exibit the traits you claimed in the first quoted paragraph.

As to the second paragraph, none of those guys were BBWAA electees.

It seems that there is some circular logic here. Take a bunch of BBWAA rejects who were later elected by the VC and conclude there is a major flaw in the BBWAA process because they rejected future HOFers.

3. kthejoker Posted: December 14, 2006 at 11:26 AM (#2261181)

Miserlou: I don't know what Daniel's logic is, but my own logic is that those rejections of Doby, Doerr, Kiner et al reflect more poorly on the BBWAA than the players themselves.

Also, there's a big difference between the BBWAA rejecting someone through the 15 year rule (Cepeda, Hodges, Kaat) and them rejecting someone through the 5% rule.

If someone gets dropped by the 5% rule, are they still eligible for VC voting?

4. Misirlou is the new market inefficiency Posted: December 14, 2006 at 11:54 AM (#2261228)

Miserlou: I don't know what Daniel's logic is, but my own logic is that those rejections of Doby, Doerr, Kiner et al reflect more poorly on the BBWAA than the players themselves.

Perhaps, but the ballots were stacked those years. For example:

1956 top 10:

Hank Greenberg
Joe Cronin
Red Ruffing
Edd Rousch
Lefty Gomez
Hack Wilson
Max Carey
Tony Lazzeri
Kiki Cuyler
Hank Gowdy.

The top 9 were all eventually elected. That ballot also included future HOFers Luke Appling, Sam Rice, Burleigh Grimes, Eppa Rixey, Jim Bottomly, Red Faber, Ducky Medwick, Chuck Klein, Al Lopez, Lou Boudreau, and Ernie Lombardi down ballot. The fact that Doerr, making only his second appearence on the ballot recieved only 5 votes is not surprising at all.

The other years in questions weren't quite so stacked, but all contained at least 8 future HOFers among the top 10, and others down ballot as well.

Doerr eventually peaked at 78 votes, Newhowser 155, Ashburn 126, and Kiner 273 (I was wong about Kiner in #2. He was elected by the BBWAA, in 1975). None were kicked off. It was a different era with different rules. Candidates, other than obvious slam dunk first balloters, "paid their dues" and slowly climbed the ladder. Comparing first time "snubs" of the 50's and 60's to first time snubs of today is not valid. Luke Apling debuted with 2 votes in 1953. Lou Boudreau with 2 in 1956, Joe Cronin with 6 in 1947, Bob Lemon with 24 (6%) in 1964, Duke Snider with 51 (13%) in 1970. All were eventually elected by the BBWAA with little problem.

5. DanG Posted: December 14, 2006 at 12:13 PM (#2261252)

The problem here is that you are conflating who the BBWAA rejects and who the VC elects.

Yes I am doing that because it’s reality. The National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum in Cooperstown, New York makes no distinction between those who go in the front door and those who goes in the doggie door, so neither do I.

In addition, if the BBWAA voters are, as you imply, giving no consideration to players on the Hall’s margin and only looking to elect the no-brainers, well, who needs ‘em? Anyone can do that.

conclude there is a major flaw in the BBWAA process because they rejected future HOFers.

Replace the word “future” with “deserving” and you got it right. As ktj wrote, it’s the rejections of Doby, Doerr, etc., and more recently Grich, Simmons, Evans, etc., that call the BBWAA voters in for indictment.

But more to the point of the article, IMO if you can see even one deserving player dropped due to the 5% rule, it should be scrapped. When you see many (Ron Santo and Dick Allen were earlier victims), it’s outrageous.

If someone gets dropped by the 5% rule, are they still eligible for VC voting?

Yes, but they must wait to be eligible based on their retirement year. The 2007 VC ballot considers players last playing in 1985 or prior.

6. Misirlou is the new market inefficiency Posted: December 14, 2006 at 01:16 PM (#2261343)

Replace the word “future” with “deserving” and you got it right. As ktj wrote, it’s the rejections of Doby, Doerr, etc., and more recently Grich, Simmons, Evans, etc., that call the BBWAA voters in for indictment.

And he's wrong WRT to the former. Read post #4 again. I agree that there is a problem with rejecting Grich and Whitaker on the first go around, but that has nothing to do with the "rejection" of Doerr 50 years ago. When you have Greenberg, Cronin, Ruffing, Rousch, Gomez, Carey, Lazzeri, Cuyler, Appling, Rice, Medwick, Boudreau, Faber, Rixey, and Lombardi sharing a ballot with Doerr, him getting less than 5% is nothing like Grich getting the same treatment.

7. Misirlou is the new market inefficiency Posted: December 14, 2006 at 01:33 PM (#2261359)

Furthermore, you are holding the sriter of 40-50 years ago up to a standard that didn't exist. It's like saying that George washington was a worse person than Richard Nixon because the former owned slaves. That Ronald Reagan was more populist than Andrew Jackson, that the election of 1800 was less legit than 2000 because women weren't allowed to vote in the former.

The assumption that because those guys got less than 5% meant that they were rejected is nonsense. They had a process, and the process was that unless you were Bob Feller or Jackie Robinson, you start out low on the ladder and work your way up. And you're forgetting one very important point. While the 5 year waiting period wasn't mandatory back then, it was pretty well followed. 1956 was only 4 years after Doerr retired. It wasn't unusual for players to recieve some votes before 5 years, but neither was it unusual for them to get very few and then explode once the 5 years was up (Doerr actually got 3 votes in 1953 as well as the 5 in 1956). In 1958 (there was no BBWAA ballot in 1957), Doerr's first ballot after the 5 year (un)official waiting period, he got 25 votes (13%).

8. DosCarlos Posted: December 14, 2006 at 01:44 PM (#2261379)

I agree with the point that the writers shouldn't be admonished for not voting for Doerr, Doby, etc. in highly contested years, but I think the basic thrust of the article is still valid. Had there been a 5% rule in place for those elections, those players would have come off the ballot and thus absent from the discussion for fifteen years; instead, Kiner, Appling, and Boudreau are eventually elected, and the Doby, Doerr, and Newhouser remain important parts of the discussion. Regardless of whether they would have eventually been elected, the 5% rule eliminates the possibility of a Lou Whitaker or Will Clark ever making a Kiner-esque climb up the voting ladder, while others are able to hang around on the ballot (like Mattingly) or move close to election (like Blyleven), simply because their starting point in the vote totals was slightly higher.

9. Doc Nabbit Posted: December 14, 2006 at 01:52 PM (#2261390)

As to the second paragraph, none of those guys were BBWAA electees.

The BBWAA elected Ralph Kiner. His vote, not including run-offs (note: they used to vote every other year for a while):

1960 1.1%
1962 3.1%
1964 15.4%
1966 24.5%
1967 42.8%
1968 41.7%
1969 40.3%
1970 55.7%
1971 58.9%
1972 59.3%
1973 61.8%
1974 58.9%
1975 75.4%

No idea what happened in '62? Did he start announcing for the Mets right away? The increased visibility might explain how the ball started rolling.

Plenty of guys prior to 1956 got less than 5% only to later win election, but that's a different story. Back then, though writers weren't supposed to vote for people who'd been retired for less than 5 years, if they did it was counted. Almost every HoF you can think of got a few token votes before they were eligible as a result. Heck, Joe DiMaggio was elected to the Hall of Fame before he was eligible for election. (miserlou, weren't you the one that found that out back on the ol' Neyer Board?) They stopped counting it after that, which is why we started getting first-year eligibles elected in 1962, after a quarter-century where it never happened.

10. Misirlou is the new market inefficiency Posted: December 14, 2006 at 02:00 PM (#2261404)

Had there been a 5% rule in place for those elections, those players would have come off the ballot and thus absent from the discussion for fifteen years; instead, Kiner, Appling, and Boudreau are eventually elected, and the Doby, Doerr, and Newhouser remain important parts of the discussion.

While this is true, it is irrelevant. there couldn't have been a 5% rule back then, as there were too many qualified candidates still hanging around. the HOF voting process was still in the paleolithic stage. The concept of a 5% rule would have been as foreign to them as unmanned jet aircraft in WWI. But had there been a 5% rule, undoubtably many if not most of those players would have exceeded it, as most writers would have maxed out their ballot.

Regardless of whether they would have eventually been elected, the 5% rule eliminates the possibility of a Lou Whitaker or Will Clark ever making a Kiner-esque climb up the voting ladder, while others are able to hang around on the ballot (like Mattingly) or move close to election (like Blyleven), simply because their starting point in the vote totals was slightly higher.

Someone here, I think it is Dag, did a study long ago (back on the Neyer board), about how voting patterns have changed and why. I recall he cited Billy Williams as the last guy to start with a low vote total (he got 97 votes in 1982 for 23%) and eventually climb the ladder and get elected by the writers. No one since him has started so low and gotten elected. It is folly to think someone could get less than 5% today and still make it. Blyleven got 17% his first try, and Mattingly got 28%. Very few guys who start below 10% remain on the ballot very long.

11. Misirlou is the new market inefficiency Posted: December 14, 2006 at 02:03 PM (#2261411)

(miserlou, weren't you the one that found that out back on the ol' Neyer Board?)

Hey Chris. I was hoping you would show up. I was writing #10 when you posted #9.

Yes it was me. And I'm sorry I missed Doerr until post #7.

12. DanG Posted: December 14, 2006 at 02:15 PM (#2261422)

DosCarlos: Thanks for getting the point.

No idea what happened in '62?

After that year, the rules were changed. Starting with the next vote in 1964, players were only eligible until 20 years after retirement, rather than 30. That dumped off a truckload of players who last played in 1932-1943.

As for the 5-year wait, I believe that was formally instituted for the 1956 election. Before this you only had to be perceived as retired. DiMaggio retired in the spring 1952, so he was eligible for election in 1953-54-55.

13. sunnyday2 Posted: December 14, 2006 at 02:18 PM (#2261428)

WWN has the obvious advantage that a nice round 100 would seem to indicate a pretty damn strong HoF contender--er, well, make that 105. Seriously, everybody above 105 on that first list is better than probably half of the HoFers. It is a scandal that players retiring over the past quarter-century do not get the same "fair shake" earlier players got. It sucks. This of course refers equally to the VC side.

14. rawagman Posted: December 14, 2006 at 02:20 PM (#2261432)

I don't think any player should be kicked off the ballot after only a single rule. I think all candidates who meet the ballot requirements for inclusion in the first place should be given five years grace. After five years on the ballot, a player must have received at least 10% of all ballots cast in his time eligible to remain on the ballot.

The ballot might get a little more crowded, but so what?

15. Doc Nabbit Posted: December 14, 2006 at 02:20 PM (#2261434)

As for the 5-year wait, I believe that was formally instituted for the 1956 election.

Right after it. Phil Rizzuto received a vote in 1956. He's the last man listed on an active roster to get a vote (Jose Rijo & Minnie Minoso weren't when they got their votes).

Before this you only had to be perceived as retired. DiMaggio retired in the spring 1952, so he was eligible for election in 1953-54-55.

I was under the impression the 5-year thing was some sort of guideline at least. It would explain the vote history of a player like Appling at least. Many guys back then jumped up in the vote by their sixth year.

16. sunnyday2 Posted: December 14, 2006 at 02:23 PM (#2261437)

Good question embedded in here somewhere--are the <5 percenters ineligible to be elected to the HoF EVER, including by the VC, or just by the BBWAA? I thought I had heard it was the former, the VC cannot consider them either. If so, then all the defenders of the status quo (above) need to eat heaping plates full of crow. Of course I could be misinformed. Anybody?

17. DanG Posted: December 14, 2006 at 02:55 PM (#2261465)

Yes, the VC considers 5% victims. Look at the 200-player list for the 2007 VC election

You find Staub and Wynn, for example, both bounced off by the 5% rule.

18. DanG Posted: December 14, 2006 at 03:01 PM (#2261472)

there were too many qualified candidates still hanging around...HOF voting process was still in the paleolithic stage.

That’s looking at it from a modern perspective. Actually, then as now, the feeling was that Hall standards had eroded intolerably. The HOF had begun voting 20 years before; all of the generals had been cleared away. They realized standards were lowering and that’s why they went to biyearly voting after 1956.

Doerr would likely have received 5% if he had debuted on the ballot after 1962. This is beside the point. The point is that, then as now, deserving players were getting less than 5% from the BBWAA. Since 1979 they have (mostly) been denied a further hearing.

The main reason for the 5% rule was a desire to limit the ballot to a size the voters could manage. The rule was a final step in this direction. In the years leading up to this, candidate limitations had periodically been instituted: a ballot screening committee; 20-year rather than 30-year time frame; ten years played limit; five years retired limit.

19. Jose Canusee Posted: December 14, 2006 at 03:48 PM (#2261526)

I would have thought that the HOM voters would point out that there was 50 years of baseball to sort through when the HOF first started, not just that there were 10 HOF or more ahead of guys like Doerr in the 50's.
Another thing about the career lengths is that players in their late 30's may try to do things that will bring them HOF votes, e.g. Glavine staying for 300 wins (it's not 100% money).
I remember Ted Williams' autobiography mentioning a fan in the '50's who began to point out where he stood relative to the retired greats, maybe it gave him incentive to keep playing rather than retire before he got to 500 HR.
It's like HS students who study specifically for standardized tests; if their scores are better than their parents', are they better students, smarter, or just more aware? I don't think any borderline HOF player now can avoid hearing how he has climbed a spot in career anything.

20. DanG Posted: December 14, 2006 at 04:08 PM (#2261544)

I would have thought that the HOM voters would point out that there was 50 years of baseball to sort through when the HOF first started

See, that's part of the problem: many voters only looked back 50 years. Actually, when the HOF began voting it had been 67 years since the first professional team was formed. ;-)

21. Misirlou is the new market inefficiency Posted: December 14, 2006 at 04:08 PM (#2261545)

Doerr would likely have received 5% if he had debuted on the ballot after 1962. This is beside the point.

Except he and others from his era are being held up as examples of why the 5% rule is unfair today.

The point is that, then as now, deserving players were getting less than 5% from the BBWAA. Since 1979 they have (mostly) been denied a further hearing.

This is true, but unfortunately, changing it won't change anything. For better or worse, Ralph Kiner like climbs up the ladder don't happen anymore. Look at some recent guys who have gotten less than 10% but more than 5% and their progressions:

Dwight Evans 6%, 10%, 3%
Ron Guidry 8%, 7%, 8%, 6%, 9%, 5%, 4%
Bob Boone 6%, 6%, 5%, 4%
Keith hernandez debuted at 9.5%, peaked at 10.7% the next year, and fell off about 6 years after that.

2nd, 3rd, 4th, looks haven't done anyone who has started so low any good in many, many years.

22. DanG Posted: December 14, 2006 at 04:16 PM (#2261553)

Bert Blyleven 

Year Election Votes Pct 
1998  BBWAA  83  17.55  
1999  BBWAA  70  14.08  
2000  BBWAA  87  17.43  
2001  BBWAA  121  23.50  
2002  BBWAA  124  26.27  
2003  BBWAA  145  29.23  
2004  BBWAA  179  35.38  
2005  BBWAA  211  40.89  
2006  BBWAA  277  53.30

Blyleven's making a prett good climb.

2nd, 3rd, 4th, looks haven't done anyone who has started so low any good in many, many years.

Which is far from saying that it can't happen or it shouldn't happen.

No, dumping the 5% rule won't solve all the Hall's problems. But it's a great and obvious first step, I think.

23. Misirlou is the new market inefficiency Posted: December 14, 2006 at 04:58 PM (#2261581)

Blyleven's making a prett good climb.

First, call me when he gets elected.

Second, his 17.55% starting point is nowhere near the 5% cutoff. He may well make it. If he does, he will be the first in 20 years to make such a climb. Even still, he is not relevant to the 5% rule because his intial vote total was over 3X the minimum required to stay on the ballot.

24. DanG Posted: December 14, 2006 at 05:10 PM (#2261597)

How about this guy? If the VC had not reformed in 2001 he would be in by now, as he was becoming eligible in 2002.

Ron Santo
Year    Election    Votes    Pct
1980 
BBWAA     15     3.90 
1985 
BBWAA     53     13.42 
1986 
BBWAA     64     15.06 
1987 
BBWAA     78     18.89 
1988 
BBWAA     108     25.29 
1989 
BBWAA     75     16.78 
1990 
BBWAA     96     21.62 
1991 
BBWAA     116     26.19 
1992 
BBWAA     136     31.63 
1993 
BBWAA     155     36.64 
1994 
BBWAA     150     32.97 
1995 
BBWAA     139     30.22 
1996 
BBWAA     174     37.02 
1997 
BBWAA     186     39.32 
1998 
BBWAA     204     43.13 
2003    HOFVC    46    56.79
2005    HOFVC    52    65.00

25. Kiko Sakata Posted: December 14, 2006 at 05:26 PM (#2261615)

It seems to me that the solution here is obvious. Simply add a 3rd voting option. You can vote "Yes", "No", or "Maybe." Any player that gets above a certain combined percentage of "Yes" and "Maybe" gets to stay on the ballot. I'd set the cutoff higher than 5% (maybe 25%?), but basically it gives voters a chance to keep somebody around if they're not sure about them.

Now, that said, there will still be some guys who are perhaps HOF-worthy who will drop off quickly - I suspect, for example, that Bobby Grich would have gotten relatively few "Maybes" because I don't think, for whatever reason, he was ever regarded as highly as he should have been.

But if you're going to insist on limiting the size of the ballot, by kicking people off it - and that's not a terrible idea - then I think you need to just let the voters explicitly decide who they want to keep on the ballot.

26. Misirlou is the new market inefficiency Posted: December 14, 2006 at 05:54 PM (#2261658)

Yes, Ron Santo got screwed. He was in the initial or possibly the second year of the 5% rule, when there were still likely a lot of dinosaurs used to the old way of doing things. His situation was quickly rectified* and he climbed the ladder but still came up well short**. I doubt Grich, Whitaker, et al, would fare nearly as well were they to be re-instated.

*I don't really remember, but were he and the others re-instated in 1985 precisely because they were in the initial classes? IOW, was there a hue and cry from the very writers who didn't vote for them the first time 'round, who didn't realize the implications of their old way of doing things?

** I believe Santo is fully qualified and have never argued anything else. He was the third or fourth best 3B in history at the time of his first ballot.

27. semajllibfonaf Posted: December 14, 2006 at 06:20 PM (#2261696)

The list of the missed you have is right on. The top ten could go in and enhance the dull, good-only-as-the-butt-of-frustrated-jokes HoF, but this is something the Hall and the reporters seem determined never to allow.

28. Jason Kendall's #6,530,420,771 fan (AS) Posted: December 15, 2006 at 08:16 AM (#2262161)

29. DanG Posted: December 15, 2006 at 11:26 AM (#2262242)

One thing I wanted to do was list the new candidates for 2007. It’s a really strong year, not only at the top but having a total of 11 guys with a WWN of 80+. If there’s a hidden gem here it would be Tony Fernandez, likely to be one and done despite having the 9th best WWN on the ballot and being every bit as good as Concepcion and Aparicio.

Po                WS  WARP3  WWN
6 Cal Ripken      427 169.1 151.8
9 Tony Gwynn      398 124.3 126.3
3 Mark McGwire    342 109.5 109.9
0 Harold Baines   307 102.4 100.7
6 Tony Fernandez  280 105.4  97.3
9 Paul O’Neill    259  98.6  90.5
9 Jose Canseco    272  87.8  87.8
5 Bobby Bonilla   267  85.1  85.6
1 Bret Saberhagen 193  90.7  82.3
3 Wally Joyner    253  82.3  82.0
5 Ken Caminiti    242  83.1  80.5
8 Devon White     207  79.2  72.5
8 Eric Davis      224  72.0  72.1

30. sunnyday2 Posted: December 15, 2006 at 11:32 AM (#2262246)

I'm one of those (OK, I'm the only one) "blow up Cooperstown" guys who hopes that McGwire fails to get 5 percent. That might get 'em to take another look at the rule.

31. Mike Green Posted: December 15, 2006 at 11:44 AM (#2262256)

"Yes, no, maybe" is a good solution to the problem of weak and strong retirement classes.

For instance, the ideal thing is for the fine first basemen of the 90s (McGriff, McGwire, Bagwell...) to be lined up and voted on against each other. A "maybe" vote for McGwire for the next 7 years or so allows this to happen. Frank Thomas gets elected first, and then it gets interesting.

32. LargeBill Posted: December 16, 2006 at 12:06 AM (#2262990)

In the last year or so I've pushed a couple scenarios which could make people reassess the whole process.

There are some voters who won't vote for guys they don't like and some who won't vote for anyone on the first ballot.

Conversely, there are some voters who send a sympathy vote to really good guys who fall short of HoF level performance.

In a few years we could have Barry Bonds, possibly one of the top three players all time, fall short of the 5% because no one (or not enough voters) vote for him on the first ballot assuming enough other voters will keep him on the ballot for future consideration.

Going the other direction, on popularity alone Sean Casey could end up being elected. I have never heard anyone say a bad word about Casey. I like the guy, but he is not a HoF caliber player. He will end up with a BA around .300. However, for a first baseman with no speed and little power that isn't enough to merit enshrinement.

What happens if in 2012 Bonds drops off the ballot and Casey is enshrined a couple years later?

33. Misirlou is the new market inefficiency Posted: December 16, 2006 at 12:22 AM (#2262993)

Going the other direction, on popularity alone Sean Casey could end up being elected.

Never in a million years. If he gets more than 5% of the votes, I will eat an angel food cake hat. Naked. On You Tube.

Don Mattingly was an extremely popular player, and 10 times the player Casey is, and he never broke 30%

34. Sean Ransom Posted: December 16, 2006 at 12:33 AM (#2262999)

Maybe Casey could get the Jim Deshayes-memorial sympathy vote from a hometown BBWAA writer.

35. LargeBill Posted: December 16, 2006 at 12:43 AM (#2263005)

While I agree that Mattingly was a better player than Casey, he was not 10 times the player. BA .307 to .302, OBP .358 to .368, SLG .471 to .456. Mattingly is ahead on the various counting stats but Casey is still playing. I believe Casey is ahead on WS rings.

Regardless, my point remains that Casey could end up with a lot more votes than expected as voters give him that friend vote.

36. DanG Posted: December 17, 2006 at 03:23 AM (#2263658)

Another thing I want to show is a list of the leading HOF candidates who last played 1966-85. These are players who had limited or no opportunity to be elected by the old formation of the VC. Included are all candidates with a WWN of 80 or better plus others who received at least 15% in one year in BBWAA balloting.

Po                 Yrs Pct  WS  WARP3  WWN
5 Ron Santo        15 43.1% 324 116.7 110.3
9 Rusty Staub       7  7.9% 358 102.7 108.7
2 Joe Torre        15 22.2% 315 103.9 102.7
3 Dick Allen       14 18.9% 342  95.7 102.5
1 Jim Kaat         15 29.6% 268  96.3 100.3
1 Luis Tiant       15 30.9% 256  98.7  99.3
8 Reggie Smith      1  0.7% 325  91.4  97.7
3 Norm Cash         1  1.6% 315  92.5  96.8
8 Willie Davis      1  0.0% 322  89.8  96.3
8 Jim Wynn          1  0.0% 305  93.4  95.8
5 Ken Boyer        15 25.5% 279 102.0  95.6
6 Bert Campaneris   1  3.1% 280 101.6  95.6
8 Vada Pinson      15 15.7% 321  88.6  95.5
9 Bobby Bonds      11 10.6% 302  93.2  95.3
9 Ken Singleton     1  0.0% 302  91.0  94.1
1 Jerry Koosman     1  0.9% 240  88.3  90.9
8 Al Oliver         1  4.3% 305  84.0  90.6
5 Sal Bando         1  0.7% 283  83.2  87.1
8 Amos Otis         1  0.0% 286  82.0  86.8
7 Minnie Minoso    15 21.1% 283  81.9  86.3
1 Mickey Lolich    15 25.5% 224  83.7  85.6
3 Boog Powell       1  1.3% 282  77.9  83.9
1 Larry Jackson     1  0.0% 225  79.7  83.6
9 Rocky Colavito    2  0.5% 273  78.7  83.1
7 Frank Howard      1  1.4% 297  73.0  82.9
6 Jim Fregosi       1  1.0% 261  81.5  82.8
7 Roy White         1  0.0% 263  80.8  82.8
6 Maury Wills      15 40.6% 253  81.7  81.7
2 Bill Freehan      1  0.5% 267  76.2  80.9
9 Tony Oliva       15 47.3% 245  67.3  72.7
8 Curt Flood       15 15.1% 221  69.1  70.2
2 Thurman Munson   15 15.5% 206  72.9  69.5
6 Harvey Kuenn     15 39.3% 223  60.7  65.8
9 Roger Maris      15 43.1% 223  58.4  64.5
1 Lew Burdette     15 24.1% 178  58.0  63.2
2 Elston Howard    15 20.7% 203  60.4  62.8
1 Roy Face         15 18.9% 139  56.8  55.5

37. Le Samourai Posted: December 18, 2006 at 04:23 PM (#2264444)

While I agree that Mattingly was a better player than Casey, he was not 10 times the player. BA .307 to .302, OBP .358 to .368, SLG .471 to .456. Mattingly is ahead on the various counting stats but Casey is still playing. I believe Casey is ahead on WS rings.

...against league averages of .261/.329/.400, as opposed to .271/.344/.437. OPS+ of 127 to 111.

C'mon.

38. alilisd Posted: December 21, 2006 at 07:03 AM (#2266264)

One thing I wanted to do was list the new candidates for 2007. It’s a really strong year, not only at the top but having a total of 11 guys with a WWN of 80+.

Dan, have you thought about a way to incorporate weighting for peak in your formula? I notice Harold Baines rates very strongly, and personally I see his value as being almost entirely on the career/longeviety side, which may be fine for some folks, but his lack of peak disqualifies him, imo. His score, even including the class of 2007, would make him the 18th "best" player not in the Hall which you've shown here. Perhaps that is a fair ranking, but to me he belongs in the Hall of Very Good Players with Long Careers (or perhpas the Ray Lankford Wing of the HOF), not the HOF.

39. DanG Posted: December 29, 2006 at 11:03 AM (#2270817)

Dan, have you thought about a way to incorporate weighting for peak in your formula?

I agree with you about Baines, definitely HOVG.

As for incorporating peak, there are a million ways to do it. My current favorite method is to use a 12-year weighted prime. Huh? you say. Yeah.

Using win shares or WARP, I weight the best season at 13/90, the 2nd best is weighted 12/90, ... to the 12th best year weighed 2/90. The result is a typical prime season for a player. (I'll have to dig up that spreadsheet, if you're interested.)

40. DanG Posted: January 09, 2007 at 03:43 PM (#2276953)

One and done in 2007:

O'Neill    12    2.2
Saberhagen    7    1.3
Canseco    6    1.1
Fernandez    4    0.7
Bichette    3    0.6
Davis    3    0.6
Bonilla    2    0.4
Caminiti    2    0.4
Buhner    1    0.2
Brosius    0    0
Joyner    0    0
White    0    0
Witt    0    0

Two and done:

Hershiser    24    4.4
Belle    19    3.5

41. DanG Posted: January 09, 2007 at 03:46 PM (#2276962)

Does this look better?

24    4.4%    Hershiser
19    3.5    Belle
12    2.2    O'Neill
7    1.3    Saberhagen
6    1.1    Canseco
4    0.7    Fernandez
3    0.6    Bichette
3    0.6    Davis
2    0.4    Bonilla
2    0.4    Caminiti
1    0.2    Buhner
0    0    Brosius
0    0    Joyner
0    0    White
0    0    Witt

42. Howie Menckel Posted: January 11, 2007 at 08:48 PM (#2278981)

Looking for just a minor victory here, why not say that a guy has to be below 5 pct of the votes for 3 years (or 5 or 10)?
The problem with a guy like Belle is that a lot of people won't consider him as 'first ballot' but don't want him off entirely either.
Then the results come in, and I'll bet a dozen or more voters may have just noticed, 'huh, I didn't think Belle would be off the ballot entirely.'
But now it's too late.
After getting 3.5 pct this year, I suspect several voters would think, 'Geesh, he should at least be on the ballot next year,' and he gets another vote. Then he clears 5 pct, and the problem is 'solved.'

I realize it's not the grand unified solution, but it's a start at least.

43. DanG Posted: January 12, 2007 at 11:22 PM (#2279856)

why not say that a guy has to be below 5 pct of the votes for 3 years (or 5 or 10)?
Howie: always nice to seee a fellow HoMer check in!

I like that solution; straight forward, easily tracked. It gives a player time to build a constituency. You could state the rule like this: A player is allowed to remain on the ballot up to 20 years after retiring (same as now) as long as he gets a vote and until the third time he draws less than 5%. Just like baseball - three strikes and you're out. Unless nobody votes for you, then you're out right away. Over time this would expand the size of the ballot to maybe 60 candidates, about double what we have now.

44. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 13, 2007 at 12:20 AM (#2279869)

DanG,

In the BTF HOF thread, besides the failure of some guys who should remain in the discussion, the other issue you had was with the lack of qualified recent candidates getting enshrined.

Isn't it possible that a more crowded ballot could exacerbate the problem? If voters are already not enshrining enough guys, would giving them double the amount of choices decrease the likelihood that some of the borderline guys (in their eyes) get the required 75 percent? I wouldn't be surprised if some voters impose artificial limits on the number of candidates they support. If one of the guys they've been voting for drops below 5 percent (and off the ballot), such as Belle, it might open them up to voting for one of the guys who actually has a chance of getting enshrined, like a Blyleven or Gossage. I just wonder if expanding the ballot, without some fundamental shift in the voters' thought process, might make the bigger problem (not electing enough modern guys) worse.

45. DanG Posted: January 13, 2007 at 12:57 AM (#2279880)

I wouldn't be surprised if some voters impose artificial limits on the number of candidates they support. If one of the guys they've been voting for drops below 5 percent (and off the ballot), such as Belle, it might open them up to voting for one of the guys who actually has a chance of getting enshrined, like a Blyleven or Gossage.
Yes, I think you would see that happen on a minor scale. It could cost a major candidate a percent or two, I think.

Getting rid of the 5% rule would be a crack in the door, aiming ultimately for more meaningful changes.

46. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 13, 2007 at 01:10 AM (#2279886)

Yes, I think you would see that happen on a minor scale. It could cost a major candidate a percent or two, I think.

Sure, it's unlikely to have a great effect, since we're talking about guys with less than 5 percent to begin with, and will only impact voters whose ballots are constrained (either by themselves or the rare voter who goes 10 deep). But with the borderline guys, any percentage point drop can be the difference between enshrinement and disappointment (or, in Goose's case, bitterness).

I do like Kiko's suggestion, which could possibly lead to a change in the thought process that does seem necessary.

47. DanG Posted: January 13, 2007 at 02:05 AM (#2279909)

I do like Kiko's suggestion, which could possibly lead to a change in the thought process that does seem necessary.

Yes, his suggestion of a "Maybe" option is really good. Actually, I kinda stole the idea in a posting to another web board. I suggested that voters be given the third option of "Deserves Further Consideration". Again, the flaw with the current system is that this aspect of voters' opinions is not being measured. This is consistent with my opening thesis, that those on the margins of the Hall are being poorly treated.

Page 1 of 1 pages

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Thursday, December 14, 2006

Hey, You! Get Off of My Ballot! – Out in the Cold in 2007

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

My Bookmarks

Hot Topics