Last week the annual Hall of Fame ballot results were released, listing thirty-two eligible candidates for possible enshrinement into Cooperstown. Only two collected the 75 percent or greater of the votes needed to gain immortality: Ken Griffey Jr. (1st Ballot) and Mike Piazza (4th Ballot). Jeff Bagwell was a close third, gaining 71.6 percent. History would make a pretty good case for Bagwell being selected next year based on his upward trend over the last two years. However, on the other side of the spectrum, there were 12 selected that didn’t even garner the necessary 5% to remain on the ballot for the next election, with seven of them not even getting a single vote of recognition. Collectively, that is a full third of the ballot.
Actually, in the last decade, a complete third of the ballot has not gained the necessary 5% to give it another shot. So, why are they on the ballot in the first place?
This makes one wonder if the Baseball Hall of Fame Balloting needs revisiting. However, before we delve into that question, let’s give you some history on how the ballot is constructed every year and the process that unfolds to give you the ballot as it is today.
Eligibility
As stated on the Baseball Hall of Fame website: To be eligible for the Baseball Hall of Fame ballot, a player must have played in each of ten (10) major league seasons. The player must also have ceased playing and not have been an active player for at least five (5) calendar years preceding the election. The Hall of Fame has built in exceptions. For example, in case of death of an active player or a player who has been retired for less than five (5) full years, a candidate who is otherwise eligible shall be eligible in the next regular election held at least six (6) months after the date of death or after the end of the (5) year period, whichever occurs first. Also, they state any player on Baseball’s ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate. (Shoeless Joe Jackson and Pete Rose come to mind)
Then, a screening committee consisting of six (6) baseball writers as appointed by the BBWAA (Baseball Writers Association of America) for a term of three (3) years, compile a list based on eligibility requirements stated above: Meet the ten year playing span, been retired for five years and bring over those players who earn 5% or more votes but not the 75% required to get in from the previous year.
This seems to be a fair and impartial way to construct the list. It holds no discrimination and is straightforward with some concrete guidelines. However, do names like Mike Lowell, Garrett Anderson, Mike Sweeney, David Eckstein and Randy Winn come up in conversation when talking about All-time greats? No. Sure, they all made an All-Star game or two, maybe a gold glove (Mike Lowell), but no MVP (regular season), not one rookie of the year, not one batting title between them over ten years. Nothing to claim they were one of the best in the game or even at their position, at any time in their career. These five aforementioned position players were and are the epitome of average. None of them averaged .300 over their career, hit 300 HR, or did anything remotely extraordinary. They were all serviceable players but we are talking about the Hall of Fame, the best ever to play the game. I understand that there are a number of players in the hall who did not have the above numbers (avg. and home runs) like Luis Aparicio, but he did have nine gold gloves (best fielding percentage at his position) and five (5) of them in consecutive years from 1958 through 1962. He was nominated for MVP (Most Valuable Player) ten (10) times, an All-Star 10 years (more than half his career) and won Rookie of the Year in 1956. He was voted into the Hall of Fame in 1984 on his sixth ballot.
So, in order to stay on the ballot they need to capture 5% of the vote (which began in 1958, where previously there was no percentage needed) each year to remain on the ballot and they have up to ten (10) years (which was just recently changed in 2014 from fifteen) to be considered eligible and listed on the ballot.
Proposed Changes
If typically a third of the ballot cannot reach the 5%, why not propose the threshold at 15%? And go one-step further and bring the number of years of ballot eligibility to seven years. The HOF has never inducted more than five players in any given year, and that only happened in the inaugural class of ’36. This further makes a compelling case that thinning the ballot of eligible candidates would continue to ensure that only the elite of the elite enter the sacred halls of Cooperstown. I mean if a player is on the ballot for seven (7) years, are they really a Hall of Famer? How did they appreciate that much in voters’ eyes to all of a sudden warrant admission after nine unsuccessful attempts as it stands now?
This would also make the BBWAA really make a hard decision on players they may or may not be sure of, such as Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire or Sammy Sosa due to their use of steroids (although, that is an article in itself, one touching on it can be read here) as well as fringe players like Jim Rice, who was selected on his final year of eligibility.
When you think of Hall of Famers, names like Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Joe DiMaggio, Sandy Koufax, Bob Gibson, Willie Mays, Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson and Cy Young come to mind. Players who did amazing things in their generation that still hold to this day like batting .406 in a single season, hitting in a consecutive 56 games, pitching 749 complete games, winning 30+ games in a year multiple times, winning 12 gold gloves and multiple MVP’s, having a career .366 batting average or having 110 shutouts. However, names like Orlando Cabrera, Tim Wakefield, Freddy Sanchez, Julio Lugo or Danys Baez do not – All 2017 Hall of Fame candidates.
Quantifiable Standards
Bill James, a baseball writer, historian, and statistician whose name is synonymous with the word sabermetrics, which is defined as the application of systematic analysis to baseball records, especially in order to evaluate and compare the performance of individual players, created a stat he calls the Hall of Fame Monitor (HOFM). He assigns point values for a number of batting rules: Batting Average, RBI’s (Runs Batted In), Home Runs, Doubles, MVP’s, Gold Gloves, etc. He also has points for specific milestones such as Home Runs, Career Hits, Lifetime Batting Average, Number of Games Started at a specific position and so on. There is also a whole points system separate for pitchers as well. One hundred (100) and higher is considered a likely Hall of Famer. The lower the number, the player’s chances becomes more unlikely.
To put this in perspective, we will use the 2016 Hall of Fame Balloting. Griffey and Piazza scored 235 and 207 respectively, and of the lower third of the elected, only two, Jason Kendall (108) and Nomar Garciaparra (112) above 100. In fact, the lower third of the ballot in the last eleven years, five years had zero (0) players, four years had one (1) player and two years had two (2) players with a 100 or better rating per the Hall of Fame Monitor Index.
If we were to apply the HOFM to Luis Aparicio he would receive a mark of 150, whereas Mike Lowell, Garrett Anderson, Mike Sweeney, David Eckstein and Randy Winn would have marks of 40, 74, 48, 28 and 20 respectively.
Alternatively, Hall of Famers Hank Aaron (421), Babe Ruth (418), Ted Williams (354), Joe DiMaggio (270), Sandy Koufax (227), Bob Gibson (222), Willie Mays (376), Ty Cobb (445), Walter Johnson (364) and Cy Young (328) exceed the mark by great lengths.
A game that has long been statistically reliant selects people to be on a ballot without any measure to statistics other than longevity and voted by primarily subjective measures, rather than mandated benchmarks. The Hall of Fame Monitor brings objectivity to the selection process.
The Hall of Fame originated in 1936 by inducting its inaugural class, which included Ty Cobb, Honus Wagner (312), Babe Ruth, Christy Mathewson (303) and Walter Johnson. Quite an impressive start. It has also set some lofty standards. The Hall should think about keeping those standards by paring down the annual ballot and abiding by stricter guidelines to ensure everything we marvel at and in the Hall now, remains that way.
http://gty.im/98022877