Crypto!

If Jimmy Rollins gets put into the HoF it's officially over.

The most similar player to Rollins, and they're pretty close in many ways, is Nellie Fox, a HOFer who didn't hit HR or steal bases much, but otherwise, like Rollins, in Posnanski's words "won Gold Gloves. He was an MVP. He was a leader. He has almost 2,500 hits [more, for Fox]. He was a credit to the game." If it wasn't over when they elected Fox, it won't be when they pick Rollins.



Provided by Stathead.com: View Stathead Tool Used
Generated 12/27/2022.

What does the HoF want?

1. Money.
2. Which generally means big induction weekends and certainly at least somebody inducted every year.
3. Preferably without having any debate/protests around PEDs, Rose, etc.**
4. (I assume) even moreseo to make sure corporate and other donations aren't interfered with either.
5. Meanwhile condition #2 takes any pressure off the VCs to hold to any standards.

** Nobody (or not enough somebodies) cares enough to get off their butt and protest Bonda and Clemens not going in. That includes me. I think there would be some protests if they had been put in (maybe not) ... I suspect eventually nobody will care and amybe they'll VC their way in.

I think Joe has it mostly right. The question of who is "they" is interesting. I doubt the MLB is as influential as people think - the HOF doesn't generate material revenues or profits for owners. They likely care more on the character issues. They don't want the Hall repudiating what the league did (shoeless joe, rose, peds). Other than that I don't think they care that much

I think "they" is some intersecting circles of HOF players, baseball insiders, and the actual HOF management.

And the things they don't want are:

1. Induction weekends with no inductees
2. Controversial players (see above )
3. Too many inductees
4. An all white cast of inductees

Looks to me like they've charged the vets committee to put one person in (maybe unanimously ) plus maybe one more. But not too many. They can't control the writers but limiting years on the ballot and limiting number of votes per year creates a small funnel.

the MLB

No. Not here.

Nellie Fox got sent in by a VC 32 years after he retired. If some committee takes a hard look at Jimmy in 2049 i might be able to forgive them but it's doubtful.

MLB is pretty heavily involved in the Hall. The relationship is very tight. MLB does in fact give the Hall money and of course access and in return the Hall gives MLB employees seats at the table and of course gives owners and execs baseball's "highest honors".

I'm at the point where although I wish they'd put in players like Grich, Whitaker, and Dwight Evans, I'm resigned to the fact that they probably won't. But whenever I went to visit the HoF (3 or 4 times) it was mostly for the exhibits, the drive through the small towns of Upstate New York, and to check out the baseball books at Willis Monie's terrific used book shop. I'd always visit the plaque room, but whether this deserving player wasn't in or whether that undeserving player slipped through, never really bothered me. It's fun to argue about who should be in and who shouldn't, but it's not as if admitting players according to my personal standards is the most important point about the institution.

I'd always visit the plaque room, but whether this deserving player wasn't in or whether that undeserving player slipped through, never really bothered me.

I've only visited Cooperstown once, and I'm incredibly glad I did, but the plaque room wasn't really that important compared to the museum. I looked at all of the plaques, but they weren't as interesting as the multitude of exhibits in the museum portion, which took my breath away. If there had been a water main break in the plaque room and it had been closed for the day, it wouldn't have made much of a change in what I remember about my visit.

I've been to Cooperstown for 3 induction ceremonies and it is always fun to visit. Though I admit I don't care as much about the membership as I used to, I have to say the Hall does really seem to have difficulty with second basemen. The all around excellence of players such as Randolph, Whitaker and Grich has gone completely unnoticed by the writers. My guess is that Chase Utley won't fare any better.

My guess is that Chase Utley won't fare any better.

Chase Utley will get a higher percentage of votes than those three combined.

1. Wants to pretend it is still relevant.

10 - Almost missed the plaque room, and had I done so I doubt Id have cared in the end. A wall full of place settings and no sense of where to start or why look at them all. I found it very inert, especially after the museum.

well I think it also wants to perpetuate its legacy right? It wants to still be relevant say 50 years down the road.

And will it stay relevant? That seems very iffy. Not just because of steroid controversies or OJ Simpson type issues, but the way we process our entertainment these days is quite different than 1936 or whatever.

In the old days it was pretty fun to take trip through upstate NY or argue baseball facts with some guy at a bar armed with nothing more than the Baseball Encyclopedia. BUt nowadays our experience is different. Instead of looking at picture albums we can take a virtual tour on our laptops. Instead of going through or memories of when so and so hit that HR to win the pennant its all here on the internet. Instead of driving to Cooperstown, we log onto BTF and argue with Walt.

That's how we process and enjoy baseball today. I guess. I dont want to say that sabermetrics has taken the fun out of the hall of fame but its taken the mystique out. Baseball players skills, and legacies and their moments are no longer mysterious and obscured by time. Its all right here on the internet. Every SB every PB every out in the world series can be looked up.

So like you said: its very hard for a roomful of bronze plaques to be compelling in the 21st century.

#12 - Sure, but TBF adding the vote percentages of Randolph (1.1%), Grich (2.6%), and Whitaker (2.9%) together would still mean that Utley just barely survived the first ballot (6.6%).

(I think he'll do better than 6.6%, but still...)

It's not about whether having the "correct" players inducted will make the plaque room itself any more interesting; the HOF is in a way a validation of our fandom. Caring who gets elected is no more strange than caring who wins the World Series, or (some) people caring who wins the Oscar's.

3. Preferably without having any debate/protests around PEDs, Rose, etc.**

A protest the HOF really doesn't want to see is one from the living HOFers, which they've basically threatened through Joe Morgan's letter a few years ago. An empty stage if Bonds, Clemens, etc. were elected would be really embarrassing. Though I suspect HOFer views will change as the pre-90s players die off.

Though I suspect HOFer views will change as the pre-90s players die off.

I would have been a lot more hopeful about that before the most recent vote. The committee included seven guys who played in the 1990s (Trammell, Chipper, Maddux, Thomas, Smith, Morris and Sandberg).

#18 - If the living HOFers boycotted just the ceremony itself whenever a PED stained player got elected, that wouldn't be too big a deal, since it wouldn't apply in most years (especially if the VC would start electing all the PED guys on the same ballot; get it over with in one fell swoop). Now, if the living HOFers started boycotting EVERY induction ceremony no matter who was elected cuz they refused to be seated on the same stage with PED cheats, then that would be a big problem for the Hall.

I can easily see Morris and Sandberg being hardasses about steroids and letting the "right" players in. Hell, throw Chipper's redneck views in along with Frank Thomas"s prickliness and views in steroids and it isn't a surprise that a lot of the steroids guys have little chance of getting in. Plus it doesn't really help that the big steroid guys were not the friendliest guys in the clubhouse. McGwire, Bonds, Sosa, and Clemens had a lot of haters in baseball.

My guess is the steroid guys are going to get the Dick Allen treatment and it's going to take 40 odd years to get them in.

Good column by Pos.

I have no idea how bad are the internal pressures within the HoF's different constituencies (for all I know, the institution is utterly deadlocked), but if the Hall thinks it's almost got the PED era (and its consequences) under control, they still have 8 more years of A-Rod before the BBWAA to go (PLUS numerous appearances for Bonds and Clemens before future Vets committees, and almost certainly, A-Rod after his BBWAA period is over).

You won't see bonds and Clemens and McGwire again for some time. They will move on now. Schilling may get another look.

Where will they move on to?

I've only visited Cooperstown once, and I'm incredibly glad I did, but the plaque room wasn't really that important compared to the museum.

I still haven't been to Cooperstown, but I have been to the Hockey Hall of Fame, and yeah the same thing holds there - the plaques and even the Stanley Cup room that lists champion teams really aren't all that interesting, the museum stuff gives a lot more resonance.

Re the steroid guys: they've got no chance via the VC. Players don't give a crap about other players' stats, they want to vote for their buddies, and ain't none of them steroid guys anyone's buddy.

(some) people caring who wins the Oscar's.

Very few people care about that -- far, far less than the number or the vehemence of those who care about the baseball HOF.

Dances With Wolves won Best Picture over Goodfellas and like zero people think DWW was a better movie than GF.

How many of the top directors or films have ever even won these mass awards? Even the film festivals get it wrong a lot.

It. Does. Not. Matter.

This is, again, one of those things that goes far beyond baseball and into the psychic need for the "correct" opinion to be externally validated by others. Film buffs don't really have that kind of yearning; indeed, mass approval is seen as, if anything, a negative. Same with music, etc. I don't need validation from others as to whether REM are better than Nickelback.

the HOF is in a way a validation of our fandom.

Only if you let it be, and other than what I wrote above, I can't understand how anyone could.

In terms of the roid guys, wide swaths of people signed onto the disproportionate and unyielding and apparently permanent cancellation of Pete Rose and now that template of "analysis" is coming back to bite the roider acolytes in the arse.(*) There's a reason people talk about and worry about slippery slopes and letting fanaticism into the intellectual bloodstream. People get seduced by the idea that it will be "just this one time for something really bad," and it virtually never is.

(*) As clearly did the general cancellation ethos within the wider culture.

#12 is this because the writers are smarter today than they used to be? What about Utley's career makes you think the BBWAA will see Utley as more deserving than those passed over? Postseason performance?

#12 is this because the writers are smarter today than they used to be? What about Utley's career makes you think the BBWAA will see Utley as more deserving than those passed over? Postseason performance?

Utley isn't on a ballot with those guys who were passed over, so their fates aren't really that important. It's not remotely the same electorate.

I think Utley has a decent chance of following the same path as Rolen, a player who was similarly assumed to be one-and-done with the writers but will soon be inducted. I don't know that Utley will make it all the way (Rolen's path is still rather remarkable), and, in fact, I would bet against it.

But I think he has a decent chance. There is a baseline of writers voting today who will support a player like him (clearly qualified on the statistical merits), which will make it easy for him to clear the 5 percent mark with room to spare. From there, it's just a question if he builds momentum. I think he will, though I couldn't begin to guess how much and how quickly. And it's possible his shitty slide in the NLCS further complicates things.

Also, as booey recognized, outpacing the support of those three guys isn't that difficult.

Short answer: the HOF wants the voters to reach a consensus. Players tend to gain momentum as they approach the threshold, and lose momentum when it becomes clear they aren't going to make it. They set the threshold high enough to where it's very hard for a candidate to get elected against a hard core of opposition or indifference.

The HOF doesn't seem to care WHO gets elected as long as SOMEBODY gets elected (preferably a few somebodies) every year. Their refusal to give clarification on the character clause is deliberate; they're more than happy to let the writers (or the VC) take the blame for all the statistically worthy but controversial candidates that are snubbed.

Now, if over 25% of the writers were boycotting the entire "steroids era" and no one from the 90's-00's was getting elected, they WOULD have a problem with that and make changes to address it. Basically, they don't give a damn until their wallet is affected.

The HOF doesn't seem to care WHO gets elected as long as SOMEBODY gets elected (preferably a few somebodies) every year. Their refusal to give clarification on the character clause is deliberate; they're more than happy to let the writers (or the VC) take the blame for all the statistically worthy but controversial candidates that are snubbed.

Absolutely. If they really wanted to shift things one way or the other, they could do a much better job of it. And their position is actually understandable. For every guy on this site who says he's done with the Hall of Fame because they won't elect the best players from the 1990s, there is one average fan who wants Bonds and Clemens and the rest of them forever on the outside.

Never been but I don't doubt that the museum is much more interesting than the plaque room. I'm just not sure I see the relevance of the point. The question is what percentage of the HoF's attendance-based revenue comes from induction weekend? I don't know the answer to that but I assume it's a big percentage. So while it's quite possibly true that who's in/out doesn't matter for attendance the other 51 weeks of the year, induction weekend is all about the plaque -- who's getting one this year and (maybe) which of the previous guys are gonna be there.

But I'm not their market. I love baseball but, as an adult, I've never seriously considered a trip to the HoF. If I was in the area for some other reason, then sure. That's not a knock on the quality of the museum.

There is a baseline of writers voting today who will support a player like him (clearly qualified on the statistical merits), which will make it easy for him to clear the 5 percent mark with room to spare. From there, it's just a question if he builds momentum.

But he's clearly qualified on only a small spectrum of statistical merits. More writers are becoming open to WAR as a metric, but Utley is so far below more traditional metrics it is likely a very small baseline who will support him. He isn't anywhere near the statistical merits on any sort of counting stats, either in single season or career. It's a purely WAR based candidacy, and even that is based on only 10 seasons. Outside of that core he has only 5 WAR across about 2000 PA's in 6 seasons. I'm not saying I'm against him as a candidate, just that I don't think that many writers are going to buy him given the very short career, PA's, and the unremarkable performance outside of WAR.

The HOF doesn't seem to care WHO gets elected as long as SOMEBODY gets elected (preferably a few somebodies) every year. Their refusal to give clarification on the character clause is deliberate; they're more than happy to let the writers (or the VC) take the blame for all the statistically worthy but controversial candidates that are snubbed.

I disagree with the assessment that they don't care who gets elected. They very much do. The Clark family is old fashioned and conservative, controversy averse. Yes, they were happy to stay quiet, to an extent, and let the writers take the fall, but they also cut the eligibility by 1/3 to get those guys off the ballot sooner. I don't doubt for a second that behind the scenes of the Era voting they made it clear they did not want those guys on the stage. Of course I have no evidence for the latter, but the characterization of the Clark family is consistent with others, such as Bill James, take on them, and there's no doubt that the cutting of eligibility from 15 to 10 years was to get the controversial players out of the public eye as quick as reasonably possible without having them elected, IMO.

But he's clearly qualified on only a small spectrum of statistical merits. More writers are becoming open to WAR as a metric, but Utley is so far below more traditional metrics it is likely a very small baseline who will support him. He isn't anywhere near the statistical merits on any sort of counting stats, either in single season or career. It's a purely WAR based candidacy, and even that is based on only 10 seasons. Outside of that core he has only 5 WAR across about 2000 PA's in 6 seasons. I'm not saying I'm against him as a candidate, just that I don't think that many writers are going to buy him given the very short career, PA's, and the unremarkable performance outside of WAR.

To the statistical voter who voted for Rolen on the first ballot despite near-identical* arguments against him, he's clearly qualified (lesser career value, higher peak). From there, we'll see if and what kind of momentum he gains.


* At the time, though it seems now people are looking for reasons why they're very different.

I doubt Clark Forbes or whatever her name is told anyone on the committee to not vote for x. I don't think she had to.

The Hall reduced eligibility because they thought all the names were creating a problem that would lead to years where very few to no players would get inducted.

Induction weekend is usually about a quarter of the Hall's yearly attendance

What Does the Hall of Fame Want?

Fry's Dog!

When do they want it?

Fry's Dog!

Looking through old threads it appears HoF weekend usually accounted for about 10% of the halls attendance. It looks like the last few years before covid induction weekend grew to be more important as yearly attendance was largely flat but the ceremonies brought in more people so that induction weekend accounted for a out a fifth of total attendance

To the statistical voter who voted for Rolen on the first ballot despite near-identical* arguments against him, he's clearly qualified (lesser career value, higher peak). From there, we'll see if and what kind of momentum he gains.

To the WAR minded voter who voted for Rolen, perhaps. For the more traditional voter, of whom there are still quite a few, Rolen was a ROY, he won 4 GG in his first 6 seasons, then another 3 from 2003-2006, and topped it off with an 8th GG at 35 years old. He had a well established record/reputation as a standout defender. Utley is a guy whose WAR case is built on an all around skill blend. His bat certainly doesn't stand out and scream HOF in any obvious ways, and writers love the obvious. Maybe the SS for Utley can sell it? But guys who are not ALL IN on WAR are not going to buy that a guy with no GG, no glowing defensive reputation, was adding 2 to 3 wins per season during his peak with his glove, and another 0.5 to 1 win with base running and DP avoidance. They're going to see a guy with very low counting stats, no historic numbers, and who didn't get a full time job in the majors until he was 26. The writers have elected very few non catchers with fewer than 8000 PA's. Puckett, DiMaggio, and Bill Terry are about the only ones I could find. Maybe Walker getting in with only 8030 will help, but again Walker had the sterling defensive reputation, an MVP, and several batting titles as well as a career 300 average, albeit with Coors concerns for many. Maybe Utley will do well, but I don't see it as likely. I'd expect him to get the Trammell treatment. Low debut, slow build to the 20's, maybe 30's, a last season bump, and that's it.

Maybe Utley will do well, but I don't see it as likely. I'd expect him to get the Trammell treatment. Low debut, slow build to the 20's, maybe 30's, a last season bump, and that's it

In that case, we're not disagreeing. As I said, I think it's possible he follows the Rolen path to induction, but I wouldn't bet on it. The more likely case is the one you just described.

In either situation, he does much better than the aforementioned Grich, Whitaker and Randolph, which is a fate that moeball and others are anticipating.

In that case, we're not disagreeing. As I said, I think it's possible he follows the Rolen path to induction, but I wouldn't bet on it. The more likely case is the one you just described.

In either situation, he does much better than the aforementioned Grich, Whitaker and Randolph, which is a fate that moeball and others are anticipating.

Ah, gotcha. Apologies for any misunderstanding there

Star Players!

When do they want them?

Now!

(some) people caring who wins the Oscar's.

Very few people care about that -- far, far less than the number or the vehemence of those who care about the baseball HOF.

Well I don't care but the Oscars' viewership is more than the World Series viewership most years. People have Oscars parties. People do office pools.

One question that Pos asks multiple times is: "Why wait?"

One argument is that it's hard to go *really* wrong if you're only electing the one or two consensus best candidates on the ballot. The really bad selections have tended to be selected as part of a group or out of a sense of completism.

But they still get in. That's his point.

WHY didn't Utley win any Gold Gloves? Anyone recall the voting landscape in question during his peak?

#46 -- I don't think Joe Tinker gets in unless it's a group selection of Tinker, Evers, Chance. Sutter, Smith were probably completism choices more than individual selections.

There's no need to hurry to make a marginal choice.

By WAR, Tinker had the best argument.

If Jeff Kent is going to get in via committee why wait 20 odd years?

If Scott Rolen is going to get in via committee why wait 20 odd years?

He's not going to have to wait for a committee. But the idea that Jimmy Rollins, for instance is inevitably going to get in via committee, so why wait, is simply untrue, and the logic behind it is deeply flawed. There are dozens of players of Jimmy Rollins' caliber who are not now and likely will never be Hall of Famers (the guys surrounding him on the all-time WAR leaderboard are a mix of HoFers and guys who have no support from anywhere). Moreover, if every voter starts voting for every guy they think will someday make the Hall of Fame, the actual Hall floor will drop (where your Hal Baines isn't a bad selection, but the in/out line).

I have no doubt Joe was thinking about these things when his ballot arrived. That doesn't make them good ideas to think.

Jimmy Rollins got about 10% in his first year. Will likely raise that over the next 9 ballots. Will probably get selected by committee at some point in the next 50 years.

But what about Jeff Kent? Why should he have to wait until 2040 or so to get in when we all know at some point they’re going to put him in?

In terms of “unworthy” candidates getting in the Hall has made it clear they simply don’t care what some baseball fans in the dark corners of the internet think about who is and isn’t worthy.

I don’t know what the new baseline is but at one point all players that got to at least 40% on the ballot ended up in one way or another. Obviously now we have a steroid issue but even those guys are going in eventually.

Jimmy Rollins got about 10% in his first year. Will likely raise that over the next 9 ballots.

That's where Poz is wrong. He's not likely to. He might*. There are dozens if not hundreds of players who received 10 percent of the vote in their first or second years who never made any substantial progress. I'd guess Jimmy Rollins will be another such individual.

* Sure, he may go from 9.4 percent to topping out at 15 percent, but I hope Poz doesn't believe everyone who gets 15 percent of the vote should just be voted on.

In terms of “unworthy” candidates getting in the Hall has made it clear they simply don’t care what some baseball fans in the dark corners of the internet think about who is and isn’t worthy

What the hell are you referring to? Are you suggesting the Hall should override the votes of its voting bodies when a mistake is made?

The players who shouldn’t be in but are.

No I’m saying he Hall doesn’t care who gets in. They accept whomever the writers and committees put in.

As for Jimmy he’s got 9 more ballots. If he gets to like 40% he’s like a lock for the Hall. If so why wait 30 years?

I would agree they don't care who gets voted in. But the Hall absolutely hasn't made any efforts to make it easier for players to get voted in.

If he gets to like 40% he’s like a lock for the Hall. If so why wait 30 years?

And I suppose that's a reasonable question to ask when he gets to 40 percent. But it sure as hell isn't an excuse to rush him to 40 percent, particularly if you don't think he warrants it.

From the cues the Hall of Fame has given, Jimmy Rollins is EXACTLY the kind of guy they want to be elected.

Knowing that, should I vote yes on him even if he’s below my line?

Should I change my line and be more inclusive in order to be in coordination with the Hall of Fame’s wishes?

I'd rather have Rollins than Wagner

From the cues the Hall of Fame has given, Jimmy Rollins is EXACTLY the kind of guy they want to be elected.

Knowing that, should I vote yes on him even if he’s below my line?

Should I change my line and be more inclusive in order to be in coordination with the Hall of Fame’s wishes?

I read it. Highlighting doesn't make it any smarter.

I'd rather have Rollins than Wagner

Is neither an option?

Obviously, Rollings is a much better candidate than Wagner. That doesn't make him a good candidate.

If Joe thinks the Hall wants Jimmy in and will put Jimmy in why should he, Joe, help make Jimmy wait 20 or 30 years to get in?

Because this “the Hall wants Jimmy in” business is just speculation based on very little evidence. If you don’t think Rollins is qualified, you shouldn’t go out of your way to create your own speculation, turn it into an assumption, and then roll over and vote for him. That makes no damn sense.

Putting Rollins in after getting only 10% of the vote is absurd. It's crazy to think he's a lock to get in eventually at this point.

That said, there is a legitimately good argument to lowering the bar from 75% to 50%, since as we pointed out in the other thread, literally every single player who hit 50% on a writers ballot was eventually elected except for Bonds, Clemens, and Schilling, who are being deliberately snubbed (and have only had one crack at a VC ballot). It does seem silly to make the 50%-74% players continue to wait when the end result is inevitable.

I've suggested before that I'd like to see the criteria changed to the top 2 vote getters on each BBWAA ballot, plus whoever else is over 75%. That would guarantee a decent induction ceremony with at least 2 new HOFers every summer; no embarrassing shutouts or even "ho-hum" single player inductions. And we'd still get the occasional big 3+ player years. If they'd implemented this back in say, 2010, here's what it would have looked like:

2010 - Dawson, Blyleven
2011 - Alomar, Larkin
2012 - Morris, Bagwell
2013 - Biggio, Piazza
2014 - Maddux, Glavine, Thomas
2015 - Johnson, Pedro, Smoltz
2016 - Griffey, Raines
2017 - Pudge, Hoffman
2018 - Chipper, Vlad, Thome
2019 - Rivera, Halladay, Edgar, Mussina
2020 - Jeter, Walker
2021 - Schilling, Bonds
2022 - Ortiz, Clemens
2023 - Rolen, Helton

We avoid the ridiculous shutouts of 2013 and 2021 and the "meh" one player inductions in 2010, 2012, and 2022. Several players get their election bumped up a year or two, and the only players we'd add that weren't eventually inducted anyway are Bonds, Clemens, and Schilling, who would significantly RAISE the statistical standards of the Hall rather than lowering it.

K, but what if they started that system earlier than 2010? Well, starting in 2000, once again everyone elected is already in the Hall except for Bonds, Clemens, and Schilling. Lee Smith, Morris, and Trammell just get in via the writers rather than being 1st ballot VC selections. Not seeing a problem yet.

Starting in 1990, we'd add Garvey, Tommy John, and McGwire in addition to Bonds/Clemens/Schilling. Mac belongs and John is borderline, so that's not an issue. Garvey isn't statistically worthy of course (and may be Satan himself), but he was a huge star in his time (10 all star selections, MVP) with a lot of accomplishments that would look good on a HOF plaque, so his selection probably wouldn't have been questioned too much back in the pre WAR/WAA days of 1996. At any rate, I'll gladly take Garvey and John if it gets us Bonds, Clemens, Schilling, and McGwire. Now, this method would handicap the VC a bit, since Cepeda, Santo, Lee Smith, Morris, Trammell, and McGriff would all have been elected by the BBWAA, but I don't see that as a problem since the VC wouldn't need to exist if the writers did a better job.

I'm sure if you kept going back further with this method when there were fewer teams in the league we'd start to see some clunkers, but with a full 30 teams in the league now I can only see this format improving the selection process. It guarantees a steady stream of elections for the Hall's bottom line and speeds up the inevitable; players and fans don't have to wait as long, VC selections get the added honor of being writers selections instead (if that matters to them), and several more players get the added distinction of being 1st ballot HOFers rather than taking an extra year or two. All without lowering the bar at all. Wins all around.

@61 I'm on team neither, but Rollins has always felt like a future committee inductee to me.

@64 Hell, I'd be good with just one guaranteed inductee a year, or anyone over 75%. I don't think that would change much of anything tbh, but it would speed up the process and guarantee an inductee every year.

#65 - One guaranteed election would be better than what we have now, but 2 would be even better, IMO. One player inductions aren't a complete embarrassment like shutouts are, but they're still pretty underwhelming, especially when it's a borderline or poor selection. The reliever only HOF classes of 2006 (Sutter) and 2008 (Gossage) were lame. If they're going to induct undeserving closers, they can at least buffer it by adding a real HOFer too. As a wise English woman with a flying umbrella once said, a spoon full of sugar helps the medicine go down!

WHY didn't Utley win any Gold Gloves? Anyone recall the voting landscape in question during his peak?

Interesting question. I don't know the landscape, but the results show Luis Castillo winning three in a row from 2003-2005, when Utley was starting to hit his peak, and then Orlando Hudson won two, Brandon Phillips one, Hudson again, and two more for Phillips. That takes you up to 2013 and Utley was toast as a defender, relatively speaking anyway. He was still adequate, but the big seasons in terms of DRS were behind him.

  49. Mayor Blomberg Posted: December 29, 2022 at 11:22 PM (#6111267)
By WAR, Tinker had the best argument.

World WAR I?

Na

That said, there is a legitimately good argument to lowering the bar from 75% to 50%, since as we pointed out in the other thread, literally every single player who hit 50% on a writers ballot was eventually elected except for Bonds, Clemens, and Schilling, who are being deliberately snubbed (and have only had one crack at a VC ballot). It does seem silly to make the 50%-74% players continue to wait when the end result is inevitable.

I think this is a solid perspective, but I think, intentionally or not, the Hall has done a really good thing for itself by using and sticking to 75% over the years. Despite the numerous VC selections over the years who water down the standards from the perspective of hard core followers of the HOF, the Baseball HOF has an aura of exclusivity that the other major sports do not have primarily because of the very high standard of 75% of the BBWAA vote. This engenders discussion, passion, and interest. Most casual fans could not tell you who Frankie Frisch is, let alone what he did to the membership of the Hall through his VC machinations, but they do know who the writer's select and they care deeply about those selections from their time as fans watching and following baseball. While the Hall definitely wants inductions each year to fill the coffers, I think sticking with the 75% over the years has done wonders for the reputation of the institution as being exclusive, and respected by the mainstream baseball fan.

Baseball hall of fame has meant more than the other halls because the writers are involved and they write about the hall.

That said, there is a legitimately good argument to lowering the bar from 75% to 50%, since as we pointed out in the other thread, literally every single player who hit 50% on a writers ballot was eventually elected except for Bonds, Clemens, and Schilling, who are being deliberately snubbed (and have only had one crack at a VC ballot). It does seem silly to make the 50%-74% players continue to wait when the end result is inevitable.

But then what about the more marginal players who don't make it to 50% until their final ballot?

#70 - Sure, but I don't think taking the top 2 players on the writers ballot every year (plus anyone else over 75%) would water down the "prestige" factor at all. It would still be more exclusive than all the other Hall of Fame's. No one says VC selections aren't real HOFers cuz they never got 75% from the writers. That's an arbitrary benchmark, and I don't think there's anything particularly hallowed about that exact cutoff.

#72 - I'm not sure I follow? If they don't get 50% until their final ballot, then they don't get elected until then. There's still going to be a process where players have to work their way up to election; it would just go a lot quicker for most of them.

Everyone who gets in can't be first ballot, otherwise we're stuck with shutouts in years with no worthy newcomers. Who retired in 2020 that's deserving? Without returning players, that would've guaranteed a shutout in 2026.

I think my top 2 players plus anyone else over 75% suggestion solves these problems. ;-)

Baseball hall of fame has meant more than the other halls because the writers are involved and they write about the hall.

The football writers vote on the Football Hall.

Like 30 of them

The writers would still be electing the players if we lowered the cutoff to 50%, or if we did the top 2 players plus anyone else over 75% suggestions. They'd actually be electing an even higher percentage of all HOFers, since there would be less need for regular VC inductions.

#70 - Sure, but I don't think taking the top 2 players on the writers ballot every year (plus anyone else over 75%) would water down the "prestige" factor at all. It would still be more exclusive than all the other Hall of Fame's. No one says VC selections aren't real HOFers cuz they never got 75% from the writers. That's an arbitrary benchmark, and I don't think there's anything particularly hallowed about that exact cutoff.

Perhaps it would not be detrimental to the prestige, but either way it's an arbitrary cutoff. There has to be some cutoff whether it's 75% or top two, or even top one. I think top one or two is pretty reasonable, but I imagine the HOF is too change averse to go for it as long as one of the routes to enshrinement is bringing in fans for the induction ceremony. And the Era committees have been very active recently as the writers have stumbled. A few years with no one via either route might bring some change.

I think the committees since the rejiggering have shown no problem with sending people into the hall when called upon.

Highest estimated attendance for induction ceremonies:

1) 2007 (82k) - Ripken, Gwynn

2) 2019 (55k) - Rivera, Mussina, Edgar, Halladay (Baines, L.Smith)

3) 2018 (53k) - Chipper, Vlad, Thome, Hoffman (Morris, Trammell)

4) 1999 (50k) - Ryan, Brett, Yount (Cepeda, Chylak, Selee, J.Williams)

5) 2016 (50k) - Griffey, Piazza

6) 2014 (48k) - Maddux, Glavine, Thomas (Torre, Cox, LaRussa)

7) 2015 (45k) - Johnson, Pedro, Smoltz, Biggio

Not a coincidence that the biggest crowds come when there's lots of inductees that living fans actually got to see play. Even 2 inductees can draw big crowds if they're super popular players (Ripken/Gwynn, Griffey/Piazza). Anyway, it seems like the Hall should WANT to induct more players. If they can do it without lowering the standards (and we've shown that they can), seems like a win/win for everybody.

There's no reason they can't avoid shutouts and single player inductions and have big crowds like this every year. It's not like a record chase where it's exciting specifically BECAUSE it's rare; with different players getting elected every season, different fans will be showing up. No one is going to start getting bored with yet another solid induction class with 2 or more modern players that fans actually watched in person.

I wouldn't be surprised if the surging crowds have been fueled by Gen Xers and Millennials becoming full time employees with disposable cash and like you said, their players going in.

So I went back to 1966, the first year of annual voting. If they inducted the top two, plus anyone else who hit 75%, anyone who's been inducted by writers or committee would still be inducted. It would also add non-HoFers Roger Maris in 1986, Harvey Kuenn in 1988, Steve Garvey in 1996, Tommy John in 2008, Mark McGwire in 2009, Curt Schilling and Barry Bonds in 2021, and Roger Clemens in 2022. Honestly, Kuenn is a bad enough admission that I would still argue for top vote getter only. In the four shutouts since 1966, that would be Yogi Berra in 1971, Phil Niekro in 1996, Craig Biggio in 2013, and Curt Schilling in 2021. I also found an interesting bit about the 1967 vote having a runoff ballot, which got Red Ruffing over the finish line. Maybe the writers should have a second ballot where they vote yes or no on the top ten vote getters, and if someone gets to 75% that way they get in. If not, the top vote getter gets in.

And since I spent so much time on it, here's the results of adding the top two vote getters each year (excluding those previously added) and anyone over 75%:

1966: Ted Williams, Red Ruffing (68.9%, inducted 1967 runoff)
1967: Joe Medwick (72.6%, inducted 1968), Roy Campanella (69.9%, inducted 1969)
1968: Lou Boudreau (51.6%, inducted 1970), Enos Slaughter (45.6%, inducted 1985)
1969: Stan Musial, Ralph Kiner (40.3%, inducted 1975)
1970: Gil Hodges (48.3%, inducted 2022), Early Wynn (46.7%, inducted 1972)
1971: Yogi Berra (67.2%, inducted 1972), Johnny Mize (43.6%, inducted 1981)
1972: Sandy Koufax, Pee Wee Reese (32.6%, inducted 1984)
1973: Warren Spahn, Whitey Ford (67.1%, inducted 1974)
1974: Mickey Mantle, Robin Roberts (61.4%, inducted 1976)
1975: Bob Lemon (64.4%, inducted 1976), Hal Newhouser (42.8%, inducted 1992)
1976: Eddie Mathews (48.7%, inducted 1978), Nellie Fox (44.8%, inducted 1997)
1977: Ernie Banks, Duke Snider (55.4%, inducted 1980)
1978: Don Drysdale (57.8%, inducted 1984), Jim Bunning (47.8%, inducted 1996)
1979: Willie Mays, Hoyt Wilhelm (38.9%, inducted 1985)
1980: Al Kaline, Red Schoendienst (42.6%, inducted 1989)
1981: Bob Gibson, Harmon Killebrew (59.6%, inducted 1984)
1982: Hank Aaron, Frank Robinson
1983: Brooks Robinson, Juan Marichal (3rd ballot)
1984: Luis Aparicio (6th ballot), Billy Williams (50.1%, inducted 1987)
1985: Lou Brock, Catfish Hunter (53.7%, inducted 1987)
1986: Willie McCovey, Roger Maris (41.6%, not yet inducted)
1987: Orlando Cepeda (43.3%, inducted 1999), Tony Oliva (38.7%, inducted 2022)
1988: Willie Stargell, Harvey Kuenn (39.3%, not yet inducted)
1989: Johnny Bench, Carl Yastrzemski
1990: Jim Palmer, Joe Morgan
1991: Rod Carew, Gaylord Perry (3rd ballot), Fergie Jenkins (3rd ballot)
1992: Tom Seaver, Rollie Fingers (2nd ballot)
1993: Reggie Jackson, Phil Niekro (65.7%, inducted 1997)
1994: Steve Carlton, Tony Perez (57.7%, inducted 2000)
1995: Mike Schmidt, Don Sutton (57.4%, inducted 1998)
1996: Steve Garvey (37.2%, not yet inducted), Ron Santo (37.0%, inducted 2012)
1997: Jim Rice (37.6%, inducted 2009), Bruce Sutter (27.5%, inducted 2006)
1998: Gary Carter (42.3%, inducted 2003), Jim Kaat (27.3%, inducted 2022)
1999: Nolan Ryan, George Brett, Robin Yount
2000: Carlton Fisk (2nd ballot), Goose Gossage (33.3%, inducted 2008)
2001: Dave Winfield, Kirby Puckett
2002: Ozzie Smith, Andre Dawson (45.3%, inducted 2010)
2003: Eddie Murray, Ryne Sandberg (49.2%, inducted 2005)
2004: Paul Molitor, Dennis Eckersley
2005: Wade Boggs, Bert Blyleven (40.9%, inducted 2011)
2006: Lee Smith (45.0%, inducted 2019), Jack Morris (41.2%, inducted 2018)
2007: Cal Ripken, Tony Gwynn
2008: Tommy John (29.1%, not yet inducted), Tim Raines (24.3%, inducted 2017)
2009: Rickey Henderson, Mark McGwire (21.9%, not yet inducted)
2010: Roberto Alomar (73.7%, inducted 2011), Barry Larkin (51.6%, inducted 2012)
2011: Jeff Bagwell (41.7%, inducted 2017), Edgar Martinez (32.9%, inducted 2019)
2012: Alan Trammell (36.8%, inducted 2018). Fred McGriff (23.9%, inducted 2023)
2013: Craig Biggio (68.2%, inducted 2015), Mike Piazza (57.8%, inducted 2016)
2014: Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Frank Thomas
2015: Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz
2016: Ken Griffey Jr, Trevor Hoffman (67.3%, inducted 2018)
2017: Ivan Rodriguez, Vladimir Guerrero (71.7%, inducted 2018)
2018: Chipper Jones, Jim Thome
2019: Mariano Rivera, Roy Halladay, Mike Mussina (6th ballot)
2020: Derek Jeter, Larry Walker (10th ballot)
2021: Curt Schilling (71.1%, not yet inducted), Barry Bonds (61.8%, not yet inducted)
2022: David Ortiz, Roger Clemens (65.2%, not yet inducted)

I doubt Harvey would have gotten the numbers he got if a)the ballot had different names on it and b) different rules.


I would say if you're going to do top 2 vote getters then you can only stay on the ballot for 5 years.

1988 was the year Harvey died so who knows. Maybe they would put him in.

#82 - Yeah, I figured if you went back far enough with this method you'd eventually get some unworthies, but there's been multiple rounds of expansion since 1966 and thus more players to choose from now, so I don't see it ever being a problem again (and really, like we showed, unless you find Garvey's induction completely revolting, it really wouldn't have been a problem for the past 30+ years). If y'all still prefer dropping it to only 1 guaranteed election though, that's still better than what we have now (we'd lose Bonds and Clemens though).

Also, as bad of selections as Kuenn and Maris would be, I'd still probably take them (plus Garvey and John) if it got us Bonds, Clemens, Schilling, and McGwire. That still raises the floor of the HOF more than it lowers it, IMO.

Baseball hall of fame has meant more than the other halls because the writers are involved

This has always struck me as bizarre, but the NFL HOF system has each candidate get fluffed up in impassioned speeches by a longtime beat writer of that team, in an effort to convince the other writers to vote for them.

That would not and does not happen in the other sports. Sure, there probably are exceptions where an occasional writer feels strongly that a player whose career they covered is underrated by those who didn't see him every day. but just on occasion.

I knew a longtime NFL beat writer who, just months after retiring, wound up going to the podium to announce one of "his team's" late-round selections to the world at the annual draft. geesh, why not hand him pom poms while they're at it?

82: Cool stuff, thanks cookie!

@83 HoFer Bill Mazeroski was next in line, about 5% lower than Kuenn. Maybe under this system, he shoots up - there were 902 votes that wouldn't need to be made - assuming voters spread those votes out means someone like Tiant, Wills, Lolich, Boyer, Santo, or Minoso could have theoretically jumped up in votes.

@86 Thanks!

There's no need to hurry to make a marginal choice.

If you want the player to be able to enjoy the honor there is.